MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80599-20 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  mvolve  violation  of  the  copyright  law 


AUTHOR: 


NUTTING,  HERBERT  C 


TITLE: 


STUDIES  IN  THE 

SI-CLAUSE 

PLACE: 

BERKELEY 

DA  TE : 

[1 905] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MTrROFORM  TARHFT 


■■pi|l|« 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


ID:iNYCG92-D3204a 
CC:9665   BLTram 


CP  5  cau 
PCss 
HMD  I 
010 
040 
100  1 
2A5  :ia 

•**•  %mif   !«■/ 

"inn 
490  0 


L:eng 
PD:1965/ 


DCF 
XMT 


OR: 


RTYPsa 
CSC  a 
GPC: 
PEP: 


POL  s 


b  1  :  p 

MOD : 
B 1 0 : 
CPIsO 


Dh 


RR: 


FRM2 

F I  C  s  (D 
FSI:0 
COL  n 


MS 


05171c33 

HNC= I cMNC 

Nuttinq,  Herbert:  Chester,  =^  I  dlB72- 1  934„ 

Studies  in  the  si-clause^  1  hCmicrof  arm  1  .:--••  l.  cBy  H 

Berkeley ,  =  I  bUn  i  ver si  ty  Pre5<^~  j  cf  J  90"3  J 

p .  C 35 1 -94 ,  =  ( c27  cm .  ' 

University  of  California  publications 


EL. :  u 
ATCs 
COM  s  b 

EML 


■r 


AD  5  05 
UD;  05 

11:0 

GEM: 


'07-92 
■07-92 


BSE: 


C  r.    Muttinq. 


'.-•>  • 


Clas B  i  cal    p h  i loloq y ,    v .     1 ,    no . 


504 


I  n  r  1. ti d e B  ta i  t)  1  i  o q  i-- a p f-,  i  c a  1  i'- e  f  e  i*^  e r<  c. e s 
I-  ConcesBive  si-clauses  in  Plautus 
dicative  apodosis  in  PlautuB, 
600  1 0   PI  a  u  t  u  B  ,    r  i  t:  u  s  Ma  c  c  i  u  s  =::  I  i,-  L.  a  n  n  1 4  a  a  i^  . 
o  .3  O   u   L  a  t  i  n  1  a  n  q  u  a  (:|  e  =  I  >;  C  J.  a  kx  •?>  *  ;*  •..:; « 

650   O   Latin  lanquaqe- i  xCcvi  iunrtion'-. 
LD6      RL I M 

D       05-07--92 


II.  Subjunctive  protasis  with  in 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE:___3l2r_Zn__  REDUCTION     RATIO:  /  /  ^ 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    (TfA)    IB     IIB  

DATE     FILMED:__6__J_-_5l: INITIALS.,,"?^  ^  C 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WnODDRlDGE7cT 


«j: 


Association  for  information  and  image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 

UlilllliiUMiUl^^ 


LU 


T  1  r 


Inches 


TTT 


5         6 

iliiiilniiliii 


7        8 

ilimliiiil 


I  I  I 


TTT 


imiiiiiiiiim 


I 


10       11 

nlimlmili 


1  \\ 


1.0 

U^    12.8 

1.4 

2.5 
22 

I.I 

2.0 
1.8 

1.6 

1.25 

12       13       14       15   mm 

jplmjmjhmlmjlmi 


MfiNUFflCTURED   TO  fillM  STPNDORDS 
BY  RPPLIED   IMRGE,    INC. 


« 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 
CLASSICAL    PHILOLOGY 


Vol.  1,  No.  2,  pp.  35-94 


January  31,  1905 


STUDIES  IN  THE  SI-CLAUSE 


I. 

CONCESSIVE  SI-CLAUSES  IN  PLAUTUS. 

n. 

SUBJUNCTIVE  PROTASIS  WITH  INDICATIVE  APODOSIS  IN  PLAUTUS. 


BY 


H.  C.  NUTTING 


BERKELEY 
THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Price  $o.60 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA    PUBLICATIONS 


CLASSICAL   PHILOLOGY.-Edward  B.  Clapp,  William  A.  Merrill,  Herbert  C. 

Nutting,  Editors.      Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume    I    (in  ' 
progress) : 

No.  1.     Hiatus  in  Greek  Melic  Poetry,  by  Edward  B.  Clapp.  Price,  $0.50 

No.  2.    Studies  in  the  Si-clause,  by  Herbert  C.  Nutting         .        .  «'  '     o.60 

No.  3.    The  Whence  and  Whither  of  the  Modern  Science  of  Language,  by 
Benj.  Ide  Wheeler  (in  press). 


The  following  series  in  Graeco-Roman  Archaeology,  Egyptian  Archaeology,  Ameri- 
can  Archaeology  aud  Ethnology  and  Anthropological  Memoirs  are  publications  from  the 
Department  of  Anthropology: 

GRAECO-KOMAN   ARCHAEOLOGY. 

Vol.  1.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  I.    Edited  by  Bernard  P.  Grenfell,  Arthur 
S.  Hunt,  and  J.  Gilbart  Smyly.     Pages  690,  Plates  9,  1903 

Price,  $16.00 

Vol.  2.    The  Tebtunis  Papyri,  Part  2  (in  preparation). 

BOTFnAH  ARCHAEOLOGY. 

Vol.  1.    The  Hearst  Medical  Papyrus.     Edited  by  G.  A.  Reisner  and  A.  M. 
Lythgoe  (in  press). 

AMERICAH  ARCHAEOLOGY  AlTD   ETHHOLOGY. 

Vol  I.    No.  1.    Life  and  Culture  of  the  Hupa,  by  Pliny  Earlc  Goddard. 

Pages  88,  Plates  30,  September,  1903     .        .        .  Price, 

No.  2.    Hupa  Texts,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard.    Pages  290,  March, 

Price, 

Vol.  2.    No.  1.    The  Exploration  of  the  Potter  Creek  Cave,  by  William  J. 
Sinclair.     Pages  27,  Plates  14,  April,  1904      .        .  Price, 

No.  2.    The  Languages  of  the  Coast  of   California  South  of  San 
Francisco,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber.    Pages  72,  June,  1904.       Price, 
No.  3.    Types  of  Indian  Culture  in  California,  by  A.  L.  Kroeber 

Pages  22,  June,  1904 Price, 

No.  4.    Basket  Designs  of  the  Indians  of  Northwestern  California 
by  A.  L.  Kroeber.     Pages  60,  Plates  7,  January,  1905.    Price,  ' 
Vol.  3.    The  Morphology  of  the  Hupa  Language,  by  Pliny  Earle  Goddard 
(in  press). 

AHTHROPOLOGICAL  MEMOIRS. 

Vol.  I.    Explorations  in  Peru,  by  Max  Uhle  (in  preparation). 
No.  1.    The  Ruins  of  Moche. 
No.  2.    Huamachuco,  Chincha,  lea. 
No.  3.    The  Inca  Buildings  of  the  Valley  of  Pisco. 


1.25 


3.00 


.40 


.60 


.25 


.75 


UNIVERSITY     OF     CALIFORNIA     PUBLICATIONS 


CLASSICAL     PHILOLOGY 


Vol.  1,  No.  2,  pp.  35-94 


January  31,1 905 


STUDIES  IN  THE  SI-CLAUSE 


BY 
H.  ('.   MJTTING. 


I.— (H)\CESSIVE  SI-CLAUSES  IN  PLAUTUS. 

In  jrem-ral  the  hypotaetic  concessive  period  may  be  defined 
as  a  complex  seiiteiiee  which  brings  together  clauses  of  such  a 
nature  that  tlie  assertion  in  the  conclusion  might  naturally  seem 
to  the  hearer  to  he  incompatible  with  the  state  of  affairs  referred 
to  in  the  concessive  chaise ;  e.g.^ 

Rud.  1353  ff. ; 
Si  maxume  mihi  ilium  reddiderit  vidulum, 
Non  ego  illic  hodie  debeo  triobolum. 

Among  the  concessive  periods  of  Plautus  introduced  by  si  and 
its  compounds  there  is  a  large  and  striking  class  distinguished 
from  the  others  by  the  (jrodc,  so  to  speak,  of  the  concessive  clause. 
To  diifei-entiate  this  group  from  what  may  be  styled  the  simple 
(or  normal)  tyix^  I  suggest  the  name  "intensive."  The  simple 
type  of  concessive  clause  (as  distinguished  from  the  intensive) 
is  characterized  hy  the  fact  that  it  goes  no  further  than  is  de- 
manded })y  the  situation— it  simi)ly  recognizes  a  state  of  affairs 
(real  or  supposed)  that  has  in  some  way  been  suggested  to  the 
mind  of  the  s|)eaker:  as,  for  instance, 

Men.  74()  \X. ; 
Si  me  derides,  at  pol  ilium  non  potes, 
I*atrem  meum. 

Ps.  290  ff. : 
Egon  patri  subrupere  possim  (|uicquam,  tam  canto  seni? 
Atque  adeo,  si  facere  possim,  pietas  prohibet. 


36' 


University  of  California  PuhlimUons.     [Class.  Phil. 


In  neither  of  tbese  passages  does  the  eoneessive  clause  exceed  the 

deaiaii^  nf  the  situation.    In  the  irst  ease  the  speaker  refers 
to  an  ohvions  fact  when  she  says  8i  me  derides;  for  IMenaeehimis 

has  heen  treating  her  in  a  manner  anything  hut  respectful.    In 
thC'  other  lie  .phw^ae  m  fmere  posmm  takes  up  a  supposed  possi- 

'Hi     mm-  m  .^ 


The  intensive  concessive  clause  on  the  other  hand  purposely 

exaggerate  the  state  of  affairs  suggested  to  the  speaker,  e.g., 

Asin.  40B  ff.. ; 

M.  Atiine  hercle  ipanm  adeo  ci>ntnor:  quassauti  capite  in- 

ecKiHc 

Quisque  obviani  hnic  occesserit  irato,  vapulabit. 

MB.  Siquideni  hercle  Aemeidink  minis  aniwmqm  expktrn. 

eedit, 
Si  raed:  iratus  tetigerit,  iratus  vapulabit. 

In  tiii  passage  Hie  mereatur  might  have  heen  content  to  confine 
himself  to  lie  reported  fact,  thus  producing  a  simple  concessive 
period  "Though  he  conies  on  in  anger,  he  will  get  a  beating  if  he 
touches^  jBi, ' '  But  this  ii^^'^lin  taine  m.  laipfession  for  his  emphatic 
mooi,.  asi^'le  liiai  to  tie  extreme  rftie  improbable  or  iiiii)ossibIe 
—though  Leoiiida  comes  nn  (not  merely  angiy  but)  filled  with 
lit  boldness  and  courage  ^f  Aehillm,  he  will  get  a  beating.  An- 
utiif '  ^tm^  ■of  lie  same  iind  is 

CS.  Qoaniiiaani  tiM  8ii:8eensui, 
merh  «na  (U.,  ««  w^)  mrf  ,uidem  h«.„i„is;  adfati.n. 

CA.  Immo  huic  panimst. 

Nam  si  pro peeeatis  reutiftH  ducat  uxoiis,  pammst. 

Here  irnfHm  \evy  obviously  «'ai)s  una  of  the  preceding  line.  It 
is  this  gratuitous  exaggeration  that  is  the  characteristic  feature 
of  the  intensive  type.  C\>ncossive  periods  beloiitriu^^  to  this  cate- 
gory are  generally  easily  i-eeognized  when  once  the  i)eculiarity 
of  the  type  lias  been  noted,  though  of  coui-se  occasionally  sen- 
tences  are  met  with  which  are  hard  to  classify. 

The  intensive  concessive  peiiod  is  interesting  from  both  tfie 
stylistic  and  the  syntactical  point  of  view.  It  is  a  form  of  speech 
common  in  dialogue,  its  most  distinctive  use  being  in  emphatic 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


37 


rejoinder.  With  Plautus  it  is  a  distinct  mannerism ;  about  one- 
third  of  all  the  concessive  clauses  in  his  plays  introduced  by  si 
and  its  compounds  belong  to  this  class.  The  lu-esent  pa|)er  deals 
particularly  with  tie  syntactical  asi)ects  of  the  case.  In  the 
pages  immediately  following,  the  concessive  periods  introduced 
by  si  and  each  of  its  eompounds  are  pivsented  separately,  the 
sentences  falling  within  the  sevei-al  groups  being  examined  with 
reference  to  the  distinction  just  made  of  simph'  and  intensive. 
Some  points  of  minor  interest  are  noted  in  passinix,  but  the  more 
important  questions  suggested  by  the  syntactical  foi-m  of  the 
intensive  concessive  period  are  reserved  for  discussion  at  the  end, 
after  all  the  material  has  been  presented. 

SI. 

It  is  (piite  impossible  to  determine  the  exact  number  of  con- 
cessive .'^/-clauses  in  Plautus.  In  many  cases  the  nature  of  a 
clause  depends  upon  the  i)oint  of  view  of  the  speakiM-,  and  there 
is  no  ()l)jective  test  by  which  to  settle  the  (piestion  definitely.  Ex- 
cluding the  more  doubtful  examples,  I  still  find  88  .vZ-clauses  that 
seem  to  diWrve  the  name  concessive.  This  exceeds  the  estimate 
of  Kriege,^  who  puts  the  number  at  ()6. 

A.— Simple. 
Amph.  908; 

Si  dixi,  nilo  magis  es  necpie  ego  esse  arbitror. 

Capt.  12; 
Si  non  ubi  sedeas  locus  est,  est  iibi  ambules. 

(^ist.  27  ff. ; 
Si  idem  istud  nos  faciamus  si  idem  imitemur,  ita  tamen  vix 

vivimus 
Cum  invidia  summa. 

Mil.  681; 
Si  albicapillus  hie  videtur,  ne  utiquam  ab  ingeniost  senex. 

]\Iost.  42  ff . ; 
Non  omnes  possunt  olere  unguenta  exotica, 
Si  tu  oles. 

Rud.  1400; 
Non  hercle  istoc  me  intervortes,  si  aliam  praedam  perdidi. 


'  De  eiiiintiatis  concessivis  apud  Plautum  et  Terentium.  Halle,  1884,  p.  4. 


m 


Umversity  of  California  Publications,      [Class.  Phil. 


Tri.  485  ft'. ; 
Semper  tii  hoe  faeito,  Lesbonice.  eo^rites, 
Id  optuiniim  esse  tute  uti  sis  optiuniis. 
Si  id  neqiieas,  saltern  iit  optimis  sis  proxiimiis. 

Tri.  507  ff. ; 
Sed  si  liai'c  rt  s  jiraviter  eecidit  stiiltitia  niea, 
Philto,  est  a«rer  sub  urhe  hie  nobis. 

True.  854  ft'. ; 
Blitea  et  luteast  inervtrix  nisi  (piae  sai)it  in  vino  ad  rem  suam : 
Si  alia  membra  vino  madeant,  eor  sit  saltem  sobrium. 

For  other  eases  see  Asin.  m:\  ft'.,  9:^3,  Aul.  254,  Baeeh.  179, 
365,  887,  1013  ft*.,  1193  ff.,  Vi\\A.  223  ft'.,  683  ft'..  742  ft'.,  Cas.  298, 
314  ft..  Cist,  (w,  152  ft'.,  Ep.  599,  Men.  670.  746,  :Mere.  636,  819  ft\. 
Mil.  298,  3()<>  tt,  747,  Most.  914.  Poen.  51,  374,  I's.  290  ft*.,  Rud. 
159,  1014,  1075,  1353  ft*.,  St.  43  ft'.,  Tri.  85  tf.,  465,  607,  True,  66 
ff.,  615,  833,  877.    Total.  48. 

Some  of  these  sim[)le  eoneessive  periods  are  a  mere  optional 
form  of  expression  for  a  thouj^ht  that  miji^ht  have  been  conveyed 
by  two  eoiirdinate  clauses  joined  by  an  adversative  conjunction. 
Such  a  case  is  IVIil.  631  (quoted  above  in  full)  ;  there  the  speaker, 
had  he  so  elected,  mi^dit  have  expressed  his  thought  in  the  fol- 
lowing form: 

**He  looks  gray,  but  in  spirit  he  is  by  no  means  old.'' 

A  more  striking,  and,  at  first  sight,  apparently  unwarranted 

use  of  the  form  of  a  hypothetical  concessive  period  appears  in 

passages  like 

True.  613  tf. ; 
STK.  Verbum  unum  adde  istoc:  iam  hercle  ego  te  hie  hae 

oft'atim  oftigam. 
CV.  Tange  modo:  iam  ego  te  hie  agnum  faciam  et  medium 

distruneabo. 
Si  tu  ad  legionem  bellator  clues,  at  ego  in  culina  elueo. 

Jn  this  last  line  the  form  of  the  first  clause  is  easily  justified, 
but  the  words  at  (t/o  in  culina  clufo,  taken  at  their  face  value, 
♦lo  not  complete  the  meaning  of  a  concessive  period.  There  is,  it 
is  true,  an  antithesis  between  the  two  clauses ;  but  a  genuine  con- 
cessive period  involves  something  more  than  mere  antithesis — 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


39 


there  is  an  incompatibility  between  the  subject  matter  of  the  two 
clauses  such  that  the  hearer  is  surprised  at  the  statement  in  the 
conclusion ;  for  the  state  of  aft'airs  here  mentioned  would  natu- 
rally seem  to  be  precluded  by  that  referred  to  in  the  concessive 
clause :  as  in  the  typical  sentence  first  quoted, 

Rud.  1353  f¥. ; 

Si  maxume  mihi  ilium  reddiderit  vidulura, 

Xon  ego  illic  hodie  debeo  triobolum 
In  the  sentence  under  discussion,  as  it  stands,  this  element  of 
incompatibility  appears  to  be  lacking;  whatever  the  amount  of 
warlike  fame  possessed  by  Stratophanes,  there  is  nothing  what- 
ever surprising  in  the  claim  of  Cuamus  that  he  is  a  famous  per- 
former in  the  kitchen. 

If  we  must  take  the  words  at  ego  in  culina  clueo  at  their  bare 
face  value,  the  probable  explanation  of  a  sentence  of  this  sort 
is  that  the  line  between  simple  antithesis  and  antithesis  with 
incompatibility  is  not  always  sharply  drawn ;  in  this  way  it  might 
occasionally  happen  that  clauses  w^hich  were  merely  antithetical 
would  be  strung  along  in  the  form  of  a  hypotactic  concessive  sen- 
tence. On  the  othei-  hand,  it  is  quite  possible  that  in  the  con- 
clusion of  a  sentence  like  True.  615  the  speaker  is  not  expressing 
himself  fully,  and  that  the  underlying  thought  contains  all  the 
elements  of  a  genuine  concessive  period.  For  instance,  the  mean- 
ing in  this  particular  case  might  be  "Though  you  are  famed  for 
valor  in  the  army,  (you  need  not  try  to  frighten  me,  for)  I  am 
a  famous  performer  in  the  kitchen."  In  the  line  that  precedes 
the  passage  fjuoted,  Cumanuis  has  shown  that  his  performances 
in  the  kitchen  include  the  handling  of  knives,  thus  helping  us  to 
fill  out  what  (if  this  interpretation  be  correct)  he  leaves  unex- 
pressed in  615.  This  second  explanation  is  a  very  attractive 
one,  and  is  the  more  justified  because  such  abbreviation  in  verbal 
expression  as  is  here  assumed  is  no  rarity  in  language  generally.^ 
With  True.  615  may  be  compared 

Bacch.  364  fl*. ; 

Si  ero  reprehensus,  macto  ego  ilium  infortunio: 

Si  illi  sunt  virgae  ruri,  at  mihi  tergum  domist. 

=  American  Journal  of  Philology,  XXIV,  p.  294.    Cf.  Lindskog,  De  enu- 
tiatus  apiul  Plaiitum  et  Terentium  condicionalibus,  Lunrlae,  1895,  p.  103  ff. 


40 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Baech.  885  ft*. : 

Quid  illuin  iriorte  territas? 
Et  ejro  te  et  ille  niactaiiiiis  infortiinio. 
Si  tihist  inaehat'ra,  at  n(>!)is  veniinast  donii. 

Rud.  1014; 
Si  til  proreta  rsti  navi's,  oiro  Lriiboriiator  (To. 


B.— Intensive. 

Tlu*  iriost  strikinir  thiiiir  {d)<)ut  the  examples  that  fall  under 
this  ln'adinjr  is  that,  in  more  than  half  of  the  eases,  the  intensive 
force  eentei's  around  some  other  word  (or  phrase)  than  the  verh. 
As  in  the  fon<>\vin«r; 

Asiii.  413  ff. : 

LI.  liic  me  moratust. 
liH  Si«juidem  herele  nune  summutn  hnuiu  te  dieas  detiruiisse 
At<iue  is  [)reeator  adsiet,  mahim  rem  etfu«j:ies  num([uam. 

Aid.  98  ft*. ; 
I*rofeeto  in  aedes  meas  me  absente  neminem 
Voh)  intromitti.     At([ue  etiam  hoe  praedieo  libi : 
Si  Bona  Fori  una  veiiiat,  ne  intromiseris. 

An  I.  555  tf. ; 
Quos  si  Artjus  servet  <|ui  oeuU'us  totus  fuit, 
Queni  (piondam  loni  luno  eustodem  add  id  it. 
Is  num<|uam  servet. 

Baeeh.  128; 
Qui  si  decern  habeas  linjruas,  inutuni  esse  addeeet. 

Baeeh.  697; 
Quern  si  oreiii  iit  mihi  nil  eredat,  id  non  ausit  eredere. 

Men.  751 ; 
Idem  herele  dieam,  si  avom  vis  addueere. 

Mil.  803  ff. ; 
Non  p(»tuit  reperire,  si  ipsi  Soli  (puierendas  dares 
Lepidioris  duas  ad  hane  rem  quam  ejro. 

Other  similar  cases  are  Aniph.  1048  ft'.,  xVsin.  318  ff.,  405  if., 
Baech.  1045  ft\,  1102  ff.,  Cas.  93  ft*..  Cist.  3  ff..  Cure.  211,  Men. 
238  ff.,  Mere.  838  ff.,  IVIil.  188,  Most.  115  ft\,  912  ff.,  Rud.  1361,  St. 
287,  Tri.  884  ft*.,  962,  1185  ff. ;  cf.  True.  527  ff.    Total,  25  cases. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


41 


In  these  sentences  the  fact  that  the  intensive  force  centers 
about  some  other  word  or  words  than  the  verb  affords  an  inter- 
esting: illustration  of  the  jreneral  principle  that  it  is  not  always 
the  verb  that  is  the  essential  and  characteristic  feature  of  a  si- 
clause.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  some  of  the  above  examples  all 
other  elements  of  the  concessive  clause  are  so  unimportant  that, 
without  loss  to  the  sense,  they  could  drop  away,  leaving  the 
phrase  about  which  the  intensive  force  centers  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  conclusion,  e.g., 

Aul.  100; 
Si  Bona  Fort  una  veniat,  ne  intromiseris. 

In  the  lines  which  precede  in  this  passaj;e  the  speaker  has  been 
jrivinir  jreneral  directions  that  no  visitor  be  admitted  to  the  house 
duriui;  his  absence.  He  would  therefore  have  been  perfectly  well 
understood  had  he  said  simply,  Ne  Bonam  Fortunam  intromi- 
seris, i.e.,  "Don't  let  even  Good  Fortune  in."'* 

In  this  connection,  as  also  showintr  the  importance  of  the  role 
played  in  the  concessive  clause  by  the  words  about  which  the 
intensive  force  centers,  should  be  mentioned  sentences  such  as 

Amph.  1051  ft*.; 
Ne((ue  me  luppiter  neque  di  omnes  id  prohibebunt,  si  volent, 
Quin  sic  faciam  uti  constitui. 

^[ost.  351 ; 
Nee  Salus  nobis  saluti  iam  esse,  si  cupiat,  potest. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  each  of  these  sentences  contains  all 
the  elements  that  \*o  to  make  up  an  intensive  concessive  period 
like  those  under  discussion.  But  the  elements  are  differently 
arran»red  here — the  si-clause  comes  late  in  the  sentence,  leaving 
the  words  about  which  the  intensive  force  centers  in  a  natural 
emphatic  position.*  As  the  sentences  stand,  si  volent  and  si 
cupiat  are  not  only  not  of  the  intensive  type,  but  it  may  even  be 


'  This  matter  is  more  fully  discussed  in  the  American  Journal  of  Phil- 
ology', XXI,  p.  260  ff . 

^Other  examples  mav  be  found  at  Aul.  311,  Capt.  529,  Cas.  324.  Cf. 
Asin.  1.53  ff.,  237,  894  ff. 


42 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. ^Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


43 


questioned  whether  they  are  concessive  at  all.^  Yet  we  have  only 
to  rearrange  the  elements  that  go  to  make  up  (e.g.)  Most.  351  in 
such  a  way  that  the  word  about  which  the  intensive  force  cen- 
ters shall  fall  within  the  si-clause,  to  produce  an  intensive  con- 
cessive period  exactly  like  those  with  which  the  discussion  started 
— Si  Sal  us  nobis  saluii  esse  cupiaty  etc.®  It  is  therefore  easy  to 
see  how  impoi'tant  a  factor  in  the  concessive  clauses  of  the  type 
under  discussion  are  the  words  about  the  intensive  force  centers.^ 

The  remaining  concessive  sentences  of  the  intensive  type  are 
Amph.  450  ff.,  Bacch.  1004,  Cui-c.  3  ff.,  449  Jf.,  Ep.  610  ff.,  .Men. 
1060  ff.,  IMerc.  694  tf.,  Most.  229  ft*.,  241,  Peis.  40  ft'.,  282  ft'.,  Ps. 
87,  265  ft.,  792  ft.,  True.  315  ff. ;  cf.  Merc.  595  tf.    Total,  15  cases. 

Here  the  intensive  force  tends  to  gravitate  toward  the  verb, 
hut  it  .seldom  centi  rs  exclusively  at  that  point ;  more  often  it  is 
diftused  throughout  the  whole  clause;  e.g., 

Amph.  450  ft'. ; 
ME.  Quo  te  agis?     SO.  Domum.     ME.  Quadrigas  si   nunc 

inscendos  loris 
Atfjiie  hinc  fugias,  ita  vix  ixjteris  eft'ugere  infortunium. 

Ps.  264  ft. ; 
PS.  Potin  ut  semel  modo,  Ballio,  hue  cum  lucro  respieias? 
BA.  Resi)iciam  istoc  pretio:  nam  si  sacruficctn  sununo  loci 
Atque  in  manibus  uta  teneam  ut  poriciam,  interea  loci 
Si  lucri  quid  detur,  potius  rem  divinam  deseram. 

This  last  is  a  very  striking  case.  Ballio  has  up  to  this  time  de- 
clined to  parley  on  the  plea  of  business.  But  at  the  nuigic  word 
pretium  he  is  ready  not  only  to  forego  business,  but  he  would 
stop  even  if  he  were  saci-ificing — and  that  too  to  mighty  Jove, 
and  at  the  very  critical  point  of  the  sacrifice:  each  of  these  speci- 
fications contributes  to  the  intensive  force. 


'  Krioge  (I.e.)  inelii<les  such  sentences  without  eoniment  as  concessive. 
But  it  may  be  noted  that  Plautus  never  uses  the  (distinctively  concessive) 
compounds  of  si,  e.g.,  etiam  si  or  tametsi  in  such  a  case,  though  he  does 
employ  these  compounds  when  the  sentence  is  so  arranged  that  the  words 
ab"»ut  which  the  intensive  force  centers  fall  within  the  limits  of  the  sub- 
ordinate clause. 

"  Such  a  case  occurs  in  Ter.  Adel.  761  ff. 

'  In  this  connection  it  should  perhaps  be  further  noted  that  in  a  few 
intensive  concessive  periods  the  emphatic  words  or  a  substitute  ap}>ear  also 
in  the  conclusion;  e.g.,  St.  287;  Si  rex  obstabit  obviam,  regem  ipsum  prius 
pervortito. 


ETSI.     26  cases. 

A.— Simple. 
In  the  examples  that  fall  under  this  heading  the  nature  of 
the  sentence  is  generally  so  evident  that  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
quote  only  the  cfi/clauses,  omitting  the  conclusions. 

Aul.  421 ;  etsi  taceas. 

Bacch.  1160 ;  etsi   .    .    .   prope  scire  puto  me. 

Bacch.  1191;  etsist  dedecori. 

Capt.  543  ft'.;  etsi  ego  domi  liber  fui,Tu.    .    .  servitutem 

servisti. 
Capt.  744;  etsi  aliter  ut  dicam  meres. 
Capt.  842 ;  etsi  nil  scio  quod  gaudeam. 
Cas.  95S;  etsi  malum  merui. 
Mil.  407;  etsi  vidi. 
Mil.  532;  etsi  east. 
Most.  6(}C);  etsi  procul  abest.® 
:\lost.  854 ;  etsi  non  metuendast. 
Pers.  272;  etsi  properas. 
IVrs.  601  ft'.;  etsi  mihi  Dixit   .    .    . 
Pers.  655 ;  etsi  res  sunt  f ractae. 
Poen.  1084 ;  etsi  hie  habitabit. 
Ps.  1113;  etsi  abest. 
Rud.  1044;  etsi  ignotust. 
Rud.  1350 ;  etsi  tu  fidem  servaveris. 
Tri.  383 ;  etsi  advorsatus  tibi  f ui. 
Tri.  474 ;  etsi  votet. 
Tri.  527 ;  etsi  scelestus  est. 
Tri.  593  ft'. ;  etsi  admodum  In  ambiguost   .    .    . 
Tri.  600;  etsi  odi  banc  domum. 
True.  815 ;  etsi  tu  taceas. 

B.— Intensive. 

There  remain  but  two  cases  to  come  under  this  head;  both 
belong  to  the  second  type  of  intensives  described,  i.e.,  the^verb  is 
the  center  of  intensity  or  else  the  intensity  is  distributed  through- 
out the  clause. 

*  In  the  edition  of  Goetz  and  Schoell  this  line  is  placed  between  609  and 
610. 


vx 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Xutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


45 


Capt.  854  ff. ; 
HE.  Xec  nil  hodit*  nee  nnilto  plus  tu  hie  edes,  ne  fnistra  sis: 
Proin  tu  tui  eottidiani  vieti  ventreni  ad  nie  adferas. 
ERG.  Quin  ita  faeiain,  ut  tute  eupias  faeere  suniptum',  etsi 
etro  veteni. 
Vid.  lOfi  ff.; 

malo  hunc  adlijrari  ad  horiani 
Ut  semf)er  piseetur,  etsi  sit  tenipestas  maxima. 

In  passin«r,  the  exeeedinj;  hrevity  of  the  r/.v/-ehiuse  may  be  noted; 
20  of  the  26  elauses  do  not  exeeed  four  woi-ds  eaeh. 

TAMETSI.     16  eases. 
A. — Simple. 

For  the  eases  that  fall  under  this  headinir  the  material  mav 
be  presented  in  the  same  way  as  foi-  etsi, 

Aniph.  21  ft*. ;  tametsi   .    .    .   Sei!)at. 

Amph.  977;  tametsi  praesens  non  ades. 

Aid.  768;  tam  etsi'*  fur  mihi's. 

Capt.  321 ;  tametsi  nniens  sum. 

Cure.  259;  tam  etsi  non  novi. 

Cure.  504;  tam  etsi  nil  feeit. 

Mil.  744;  tam  etsi  dominus  non  invitus  patitur. 

Pers.  *^62;  tam  etsi  id  futurum  non  est. 

Poen.  342;  tam  etsi  in  abstruso  sitast. 

Poen.  1201 ;  tametsi  sumus  servae. 

Ps.  244;  tametsi  oeeupatu's. 

Ps.  471 ;  tam  etsi  tibi  suseenseo. 

St.  41;  tam  etsi's  luiiior. 

St.  205 ;  tam  etsi  herele  .    .    .   iudieo. 

B.~Intensive. 
Men.  92; 

Numqiiam  herele  effiisriet,  tam  etsi  capital  feeerit. 
Tri.  679 ; 

Facilest  inventu:  datur  ijrnis,  tam  etsi  ab  inimico  petas. 


T]iou«:h  the  number  of  intensive  cases  is  the  same  as  for  etsi. 
the  smaller  sum  total  rendei-s  the  proportion  larg:er.  There  is 
also  the  further  difference  that  these  cases  are  of  the  type  first 
described — the  intensive  force  centers  about  some  other  word  or 
words  than  the  verb.  Thou^^h  not  so  strikinjr,  the  brevity  of  the 
tam€tsi-i^\i\UHe  also  desei'ves  notice;  10  of  the  16  examples  do  not 
exceed  four  words. 

ETIAM  SI.    2  cases."* 
Ep.  518  ff*. ; 

immo  etiam  si  altcrum 
Tautum  perdundumst,  perdam  potius  quam  sinam 
Me  inpune  irrisum  esse. 
Ps.  626  ff. ; 

PS.  ^lihi  herele  vero,  qui  res  rationesque  eri 
Rallionis  cui-o,  arjrentum  accepto  et  quoi  debet  dato. 
HA.  Si  (|uidem  herele  etiam  supremi  promptas  thensauros 

I  avis 
Tibi  libellam  arjrenti  numquam  credam. 

Both  these  cases  are  intensives  of  the  first  type — ^the  intensive 
force  centers  elsewhere  than  around  the  verb.  In  the  second  case 
the  resolution  si  .  .  .  etiam  is  precisely  papallel  to  ct  .  .  .  icat 
and  "  If  .  .  .  even  ;'Mn  translating  the  sentence  the  last  named 
phrase  mijrht  be  used  to  advanta«;e.  In  general,  intensives  of  the 
fii-st  type  (however  introduced  in  Latin)  can  be  rendered  by 
** Though  .  .  .  even''  and  '*If  .  .  .  even;''  in  this  way  we 
have  something  more  than  stress  of  voice  to  mark  the  center  of 
intensive  force. 

In  view  of  the  very  restricted  and  clearly  defined  use  of  etiam 
si.  it  is  inexact,  when  dealing  with  the  language  of  Plautus,  to 
make  the  phrase  si  =  etiam  si  a  substitute  for  saying  that  a  given 
^/-clause  is  concessive.    Sonnenschein  makes  such  a  note  on 

Rud.  1400 ; 
Xon  herele  istoc  me  intervortes,  si  aliam  praedam  perdidi. 

The  real  parallel  to  this  ^/-clause  is  the  ^f5«-clause,  as  will  be  at 


» Tttmetsi  is  here  written  as  one  word  or  two,  ac(M>r.line  to  tlie  reaaintr 
of  the  Goetz-Schoell  edition.  ** 


'"  Cas.  806  also  shows  the  combination  etmm  si,  but  the  passage  is  mani- 
festly cornii)t. 


46 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phii* 


cnce  evident  if  it  be  compared  with  the  exainples  r|uoted  uiuler 
that  headinjr;  the  parallelism  is  coiiipkte,  even  to  the  nmnhor  of 
words  in  the  clause. 


TAMEN  SI."    2  cases. 
Cas.  795; 

Qui  amat,  tanien  herele  si  esnrit,  nulhiiii  r^surit. 

St.  27  ff . ; 
Tanien  si  faciet,  niinunie  irasei 
Decet :  necpie  id  immerito  eveniet. 
Both  of  these  are  simple  concessive  i>tM'i<Kls. 

TAMEN  ETSI.    2  cases.'' 

Mil.  1209  ff.; 

Postrenio  tanien 
Etsi  istuc  niihi  a^'erbninst,  tpiia  ero  te  carendnnist  optnnio, 
Salteni  id  volnp  «^st  qnom   .    .    . 

Most.  llf>7; 

TH.  Verberihns,   lutnni,  caedere  pendens.     TK.  Tanien  etsi 
pudet  ? 

These  two  cases  are  also  simple  conci'ssive  periods. 

It  now  remains  to  consider  two  jreneral  syntactical  peculiari- 
ties broup:ht  to  lijrht  by  a  division  of  concessive  clauses  accordiniz 
as  they  are  simple  or  intensive.  First  as  to  introductory  particle ; 
the  usa«.^e  of  Plautus  can  be  conveniently  examined  in  the  follow- 
inir  summary. 


si 

etsi 

tametsi 

etiam  si 

tanien  si 

tamen  etsi 

2 

Totals 

Simple 

48 

24 

14 

0 

2 

90 

Intensive 

40 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

46 

Totals 

88 

26 

16 

2 

2 

2 

136 

It  will  be  seen  that  ,s/  has  been  used  as  the  introductory  particle 
in  48  of  the  90  simple  concessive  periods,  and  in  40  of  the  4(3 

"  Kriege  (1.  e.)  docs  not  recognize  this  compound. 

"Kriege  (1.  c.)  wakes  this  number  four  b\  including  Cas.  9.5S  and  Poen. 
1084.  These  cases  are  here  enumerated  under  etsi,  tamen  being  assigned  to 
the  apodosis. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


47 


intensive.  The  overwhelming  preponderance  of  si  in  sentences 
of  the  intensive  type  presents  an  interesting  problem.  Appar- 
ently the  key  to  the  situation  lies  in  the  fact  that,  from  the  subjec- 
tive point  of  view,  concessive  clauses  in  general  fall  into  two  dis- 
nnct  categoi'ies;  by  the  use  of  such  a  clause  the  speaker  may  (a) 
concede  that  a  thing  is  really  true,  or  (b)  concede  it  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  or  the  like.    As  in  the  following  examples: 

(a) 
Cas.  957  If.; 

vapulo  herele  ego  invitus  tamen, 

Etsi  malum  merui. 

(h) 
Hacch.  1004; 

Nam  ego  non  latui'us  sum,  si  iubeas  maxume. 

Bacch.  128; 

Qui  si  decem  habeas  linguas,  mutum  esse  addecet. 

In  the  first  of  these  passages  etsi  malum  merui  is  scarcely  more 
than  a  statement  of  fact;  without  altering  the  sense  it  could  be 
made  such  by  so  rearranging  the  sentence  as  to  give  it  first  place. 
Hut  in  the  cases  that  fall  under  (b)  there  is  a  totally  different 
state  of  affairs;  the  concessive  clause  is  a  mere  supposition,  and, 
as  such,  is  closely  allied  to  the  pure  conditional  clause  ;^^  for  in 
both  the  speaker  is  equally  lacking  in  assurance  of  realization  in 
fact.  Therefore  if  si — a  word  whose  distinctive  function  it  is  to 
introduce  pure  conditional  clauses — is  also  to  do  duty  anywhere 
as  a  concessive  particle,  clearly  it  is  in  concessive  clauses  of  this 
second  variety  that  we  should  expect  to  find  it  most  freely  used 
— and  such  in  fact  is  the  case.  The  overwhelming  preponderance 
of  si  in  sentences  of  the  intensive  type  is  but  an  illustration  of 
the  workings  of  this  general  principle;  for  in  them  the  conces- 
sive clause  by  its  very  nature  is  a  mere  supposition — its  essential 
characteristic  being  that  it  far  exceeds  the  facts  of  the  case,  often 
flying  to  the  extreme  of  the  improbable  or  the  impossible ;  e.g., 

Asin.  414;  Siquidem  herele  nunc  summum  lovem  te  dicas 

detinuisse. 
Aul.  100 ;  Si  Bona  Fortuna  veniat. 
Bacch.  697 ;  Quern  si  orem  ut  mihi  nil  credat. 
]\rcn.  751 ;  si  avom  vis  adducere. 


in 


Cf.  American  Journal  of  Philologj',  XXIV,  p.  279  ff. 


48 


University  of  California  Publications,      [('lass.  Phil. 


Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view,  the  larj^e  use  of  si  in  sentences 
of  the  intensive  type  ceases  to  be  snrprisinjr. 

The  fact  that  si  introduces  48  of  the  90  simple  concessive 
periods  does  not  perhaps  seem  to  Crill  so  loudly  for  explanation, 
but  it  may  be  noted  in  passinjr  that  this  ratio  completes  the  illus- 
tration of  the  preneral  principle  above  noted  with  reference  to 
the  use  of  si.  A  simple  concessive  period  may  be  of  either  of  the 
varieties  above  desi^rnated  as  (a)  and  (b).  Si  introduces  prac- 
tically all  that  are  mere  suppositions,  and  has  found  its  way  to 
a  considerable  extent  into  clauses  that  admit  a  fact,  leavinir  the 
Iar*?er  share  of  these  latter  however  for  its  more  distinctively 
conci*ssive  compounds. 

In  the  followintr  table  the  conccssivi  clauses  are  a«rain  classi- 
fied, this  time  with  reference  to  the  mood  of  the  verl).  The  totals 
differ  sli«rhtly  froni  those  of  the  other  table  because,  for  the  pres- 
ent purpose,  it  was  necessary  to  exclude  doubtful  forms,  such, 
for  instance,  as  those  in  -am. 


8i 

30 
15 

etsi 

tametsi 

I 
etiam  si 

i 
taiiien  si 

tamen  etsi 

,     Totals 

Simple 

( indie. 
Isubj. 

20 
2 

14 
0 

0 
0 

2 
0 

•> 

0 

08 
17—85 

Intensive  ^ 

r  indie. 

l  sul>j. 

10 

29 

0 

0 
1 

2 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

12 
32—44 

Totals 

84 

24 

15 

2 

2 

2 

129 

It  here  appears  that  in  sentences  of  the  simi)le  concessive  type 
the  proportion  of  indicative  to  subjunctive  is  68:17,  while  for 
the  intensive  type  it  is  12:32.  The  reason  for  this  remarkable 
variation  is  doubtless  to  be  found  alontr  the  line  of  the  distinction 
just  drawn  between  those  concessive  clauses  that  admit  a  fact 
and  those  which  are  mere  suppositions.  A  concessive  clause  that 
admits  a  fact  is  closely  akin  to  a  statement,  and  naturally  takes 
the  indicative;**  whereas  those  which  betray  a  lack  of  assurance 
about  realization  in  fact  (and  are  thus  closely  allied  to  conditional 
speaking)  use  soiuetimes  one  m(X>d,  sometimes  the  other— nuich 
as  so  many  conditional  clauses  mijrht  do.  From  this  point  of 
view    the    meaning  of  the  ratio  of  indicative    to    subjunctive 


Vol.  1] 


Xiitting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


49 


(68: 17)  for  the  simple  concessive  periods  begin  to  appear;  for, 
as  above  noted,  we  have  here  to  do  both  with  clauses  that  admit 
a  fact  and  with  those  that  are  mere  suppositions.  The  (very 
numerous)  cases  that  admit  a  fact  count  solidly  on  the  indicative 
side  of  the  ratio,  whereas  the  mere  suppositions  contribute  a  rea- 
sonable number  to  each  member  of  the  proportion.  Under  these 
circumstances  a  heavy  preponderance  of  the  indicative  is  just 
the  thing  to  be  expected  in  the  totals.** 

The  ratio  of  indicative  to  subjunctive  (12:32)  in  the  intens- 
ive periods  cannot  be  explained  so  simply.  Of  course,  we  should 
expect  to  find  both  moods  fairly  well  represented,  for  (as  already 
shown)  the  intensive  concessive  clause  is  by  its  very  nature  a 
mere  supposition,  and  would  therefore  in  general  follow  the  rules 
for  mood  in  pu»^e  conditions.  But  this  is  not  a  full  explanation 
of  the  ratio  12 :  32 ;  for  in  conditional  sentences  Plautus  uses  the 
indicative  on  the  average  much  more  frequently  than  he  does 
the  subjunctive.  The  intensive  concessive  clause  however  is  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  colorless  supposition — it  is  generally  a 
very  wild  and  improbable  one.  Apparently  it  is  this  peculiarity 
that  turns  the  scale  so  heavily  in  favor  of  the  subjunctive.*" 


'*  I  am  speaking  here  only  of  the  language  of  Plautus,  and  in  particular 
of  the  concessive  clauses  intro-luced  by  si  and  its  compounds.  Such  a  state- 
ment would  not  of  course  apply  to  a  developed  construction  like  the  sub- 
junctive c«m-clause  in  concessive  periods  of  Cicero's  time. 

"  In  this  connection  it  may  be  noted  that  the  ctsi-  and  tametsi-clsiuaes 
ahnost  uhvays  concede  a  fact.  The  conventional  rule  for  mood  with  these 
particles  quite  disregards  this  basis  of  explanation  for  the  use  of  the  indic- 
ative. 

^^  This  point  is  further  considered  in  the  following  paper.     See  p.  88  ff. 


50 


University  of  California  Puhlications.     [Class.  Phil 


STUDIES  IN  THE  SI-CLAUSE. 

II.— STTBJrXCTIVE  PROTASIS  WITH  IXDICATIVE 

APODOSIS  TX  PLArTlS.i 

In  this  paper  the  phra.se  **snbjnnetive  protasis  with  indica- 
tive apodosis*'  is  used  in  the  l)r()ad  sense  in  which  it  is  connnonly 
iindei*sttK)d — that  is,  as  includin*r  all  sentences  whose  subordinate 
clause  chances  to  be  introduced  by  si,  irrespective  of  the  exact 
nature  of  the  underlyinir  thou*rht.  The  ar»;unient  throu«rhout 
is  based  on  sentences  which  employ  undoubted  forms  of  the  sub- 
junctive and  indicative;  those  containing  forms  in  -fiw,  -nr,  etc., 
could  only  brinjx  an  element  of  uncertainty  into  the  discussion, 
and  the  material  fortunately  is  abundant  without  them.- 

l.-PURE  CONDITIONAL  SENTENCES. 

As  a  preliminary  to  the  detailed  study  of  the  sentences  of 
this  i^roup,  attention  may  i)roperly  be  called  to  the  somewhat 
undeveloped  state  of  the  language  in  the  time  of  Plautus.  With 
regard  to  this  two  points  are  of  interest  for  the  present  discus- 
sion. 

In  the  Hi"st  place,  the  uses  of  the  subjunctive  and  the  indica- 
tive were  not  in  general  so  carefully  differentiated  as  at  a  later 
period.  For  example.  Ha  me  di  atnahuuf  and  ita  mc  amabii  lup- 
piter  are  used  freely  alongside  of  //(/  mv  di  amvut.  Again,  take 
the  deliberative  question : 

*  See  the  Classical  K'view,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  449  If.,  for  a  critique  of  the 
work  of  Lilie,  Lebreton  ami  Lodge  aiKl  the  later  theory  of  Blase  on  this 
subject.  Blase 's  earlier  view  will  be  found  in  De  modorum  temi)orumque 
in  enuntiatis  eondicionalibus  Latinis  permutatione,  Dissertationes  Philo- 
logicae  Argentoratenses,  Vol.  X,  p.  94  (38)  ft'.  Cf.  Langen,  Beitriige  zur 
Kritik  un<l  Erklarung  <les  Plautus,  p.  43  ft".  The  subject  is  treated  indi- 
rectly by  Lintlskog,  De  enuntiatis  apud  Flautum  et  Terentiuni  eondicio- 
nalibus, Lundae  1895,  and  by  O.  Bnigiuann,  t^ber  den  Gebrauch  des  condi- 
cionalen  Xi  in  tier  jilteren  LatinitJit,  Leipzig,  1887.  There  are  also  many 
other  scattere«l  references.  Since  this  was  written  1  have  received  Blase 's 
prog.  Studien  und  Kritiken  zur  hiteinischen  Syntax,  I  Theil,  Mainz,  1904, 
the  latter  part  of  which  touches  the  following  discussion  at  several  points. 

'  The  following  cases  also  have  little  value  for  the  present  discussion 
l>ecause  the  subjunctive  of  the  .vi-clause  niav  be  due  to  dependence  on  an 
infinitive  or  the  like;  Amph.  675,  Aul.  *Jl»8,  320,  Bacch.  1193  ff.,  Ps.  1033  flF., 
and  St.  112. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


51 


Ter.  Phor.  736-37 : 

CH.  Quid  ago? 
80.  (pii  est  eius  pater.     CH.  Adeo,  manco,  dum  ...  co- 
gnosce ? 
Ter.  And.  639 : 
Sed  quid  agam?  adeamne  ad  eum  et  .    .    .  expostulemP 

Finally  might  be  eited  cases  of  remarkable  variation  of  mood  in 
conditional  sentences;  e.g.; 
Ps.  1070  ft'. : 

Roga  me  viginti  minas, 
si  ille  hodie  ilia  sit  petit  us  muliere 
sive  eam  tuo  gnato  hodie,  ut  promisit,  dahit. 

Amph.  703  ff. : 
Bacchae  bacchanti  si  velis  advorsarier, 
ex  insana  insaniorem  facicSy  feriet  saepius : 
si  obsequare,  una  resolvas  plaga.* 

It  is  possible  that  the  very  considerable  middle  ground  afforded 
by  forms  belonging  to  both  the  subjunctive  and  the  indicative 
(e.g.,  those  in  -am,  -ar,  -eris,  etc.)  tended  to  delay  a  sharp  differ- 
entiation between  the  uses  of  the  two  mood  systems. 

In  the  second  place,  in  Plautus'  day  grammatical  conceptions 
were  neither  so  symmetrical  nor  so  clearly  defined  as  at  a  later 
time.  This  is  shown  in  an  interesting  way  in  such  contrary  to 
fact  sentences  as  the  following : 

Aul.  523-24: 
Compcllarem  ego  ilium,  ni  metuam  ne  desinat 
memorare  mores  mulierum :  nunc  sic  sinam. 

Bacch.  635: 
PI.  Si  mihi  sit,  polliccar.    MX.  Scio,  dares :  novi. 

Poen.  1251-52: 

primum,  si  id  fieri  possit, 
ne  indigna  indignis  dei  darent,  id  ego  evenire  vellem. 

St.  510-11 : 
Voce^n  ego  te  ad  me  ad  cenam,  f  rater  tuos  nisi  dixisset  mihi 


'  So  also  quid  ago?  and  quid  agam?  in  Ter.  Phor.  447  and  Hec.  715. 

*  With  these  might  be  compared  Cist.  683  ff.  (si  nemo  praeteriit,  iaceret) 
and  Rud.  744  (iam  tanta  esset,  si  vivit). 


52 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


te  apud  se  cenaturuni  esse  hodie,  i{\unn  me  ad  se  ad  eeuam 
vocat. 
True.  830 : 
Nam  vinum  si  fabulari  jjossit,  se  deft  udc ret, ^ 

SiK-h  combinations  of  forms  as  here  oeeur  we  can  readilv  under- 
stand,  for  just  at  this  tiine  the  contrary  to  fact  idea  was  discard- 
in*,'  the  present  (and  perfect)  subjunctive,  findint;  in  the  imper- 
fect and  pluperfect  a  more  distinctivi'  and  satisfactory  form  of 
expressi(m;  but  that  the  two  forms  should  be  min«rled  within  the 
limits  of  a  sinji:le  sentence  betrays  a  lack  of  keen  appreciation 
for  synnnetrical  sentence  structure. 

These  two  characteristics  of  early  Latin  distinctly  favored 
the  freipient  occurrtMice  of  subjunctive  protasis  with  indicative 
apodosis.  For  the  failure  to  differentiate  clearly  between  the 
use  of  subjunctive  and  indicative  forms  in  «;eneral  must  have 
affected  also  the  choice  of  mood  in  the  clauses  of  conditional  sen- 
tences— in  some  cases,  so  far  as  meanin*;  is  concerned,  there  was 
doubtless  little  to  choose  between  the  two  moods:  and  to  a  writer 
whose  ideiis  of  symmetrical  sentence  structure  were  somewhat 
undeveloped  the  pairini;  of  different  moods  in  the  clauses  of  a 
conditional  sentence  probably  did  not  appear  to  be  such  a  strik- 
ing? irret^'ularity  as  it  seems  when  viewed  from  a  later  standpoint." 
The  many  examples  however  in  which  Plautus  uses  the  same 
m<H)d  in  both  clauses  show  clearly  that  he  had  a  fairly  stroni? 
conception  of  this  procedure  as  the  norm.  This  fact  is  by  no 
means  lost  sitrht  of  in  the  followinj?  discussion,  but  cm  the  other 

hand  it  is  not  there  accorded  the  undue  prominence  sometimes 
^'iven  it.^ 

So  many  cases  fallin«j:  under  the  head  of  the  pure  conditional 
sentence  have  forms  of  posse  in  apodosis  that  I  venture  to  treat 


5  <  '< 


(t.  iapt.  rll-Jl»,  Cist.  3  ff.  an<l  Cure.  226  ff.  A  somewhat  similar 
»iVr  ?i  symmetry  in  the  matter  of  sequence  of  tenses  is  noted  by  Brix  on 
Mil.  131;  ef.  Asin.  589-90  antl  (apt.  28. 

"This  statement  may  not  be  put  asi<le  with  the  remark  that  the  languaffe 
of  Plautus  IS  colloquial.  For  the  colloquial  stvle,  as  well  as  others  was 
profoundly  aflfectetl  by  the  development  of  the  language  up  to  the  tiilie  of 
Cicero;  see  Lebreton,  fitudes  sur  la  I^ngue  et  la  Gramniaire  de  Cieeron 
lntro<l.  p.  X  tr.  espc.  xv.  Further,  some  may  be  surprise<l  to  learn  from  the 
tables  ot  Lebreton  and  Blase  that  there  are  more  cases  of  the  form  si  sit— 
e«WmO  in  Cicero's  orations  than  in  his  letters;  see  L.  p.  364  and  cf.  p. 

'  See  Langen,  1.  c.  p.  50  fin. 


Vol.  1] 


Xiittiiuj. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


53 


them  separately.  Bein":  somewhat  simpler,  they  are  presented 
fii-st  under  A,  while  the  remaining;  sentences  appear  later 
under  B. 

A.— Posse  (Potis)  in  Apodosis. 

The  material  falling'  under  this  heading;  may  be  subdivided 
on  the  basis  of  tense. 

(a).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit potest. 

This  LH'oup  furnishes  examples  of  three  different  types. 

1.     Unconditioned  ability. 
Cure.  2()S-()9 : 
Si(|uidem  ineul)are  velint  qui  periuraverint, 
locus  lion  j)raeberi  potis  est  in  Capitolio. 
Mil.  7():U)4: 

Ilaud  eentesumam 
partem  dixi  atque,  otium  rei  si  sit,  possum  expromere. 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  the  inability  of  the  Capitoline  to 
j)r()vide  accommodation  for  all  perjurers  is  not  in  any  way  de- 
ptMident  on  their  wish  to  find  a  restin<x  place  within  its  limits; 
and  in  the  second  the  speaker's  fund  of  information  is  a  fact 
uninfluenced  by  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  condition.  This  state 
of  aflf'airs  makes  it  possible  to  provide  a  very  satisfactory  expla- 
nation of  the  form  of  the  sentences.  For  as  the  speaker  comes  to 
the  apodosis  he  may  realize  that  the  ability  of  which  he  means 
to  speak  is  not  dependent  on  the  fulfillment  of  the  condition,  and 
he  is  therefore  free  to  state  that  ability  as  unconditioned.  I  say 
free  to  do  so,  because  in  so  doinfr  he  is  usinjr  a  form  of  expression 
which  in  a  way  includes  and  implies  what  could  be  done  under 
the  supposed  circumstances — that  is,  includes  and  implies  the 
lo^ncally  exact  apodosis. 

Thou^di  there  is  no  absolutely  certain  case,  still  a  survey  of 
the  material  leaves  a  strong  impression  that  sometimes  Plautus 
carries  this  process  a  step  further  and  ventures  to  substitute  an 
all  inclusive  statement  of  unconditioned  ability  where  the  lo§:icaI 
apodosis  is  would  rather  than  could.    Such  an  example  may  be 

Cist.  308: 
Adhinnire  equolam  possum  ego  banc,  si  detur  sola  soli. 


54 


University  of  Calif omia  Publications.     [Class.  Phil. 


If  this  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  sentence,  a  close  parallel  is 
afforded  by  the  following;  case  in  which,  after  an  indicative  con- 
dition, the  speakers  substitute  for  an  assertion  of  what  they  icill 
do  a  statement  of  what  they  are  wont  to  do— the  latter  in  a 
way  including  and  implying  the  former : 

Poen.  516-17 : 
Si  nee  recte  dicis  nobis  dives  de  sunimo  loco, 
divitem  audacter  soli  m  us  mactare  infortunio. 


2.    Conditioned  ability. 


Cure.  246-47: 


Fotin  c(miectunnn  facere,  si  narrem  tibi 
hac  nocte  (luod  ego  soinniavi  donniens? 

In  this  case  the  ability  to  make  a  guess  seems  clearly  dependent 
on  being  provided  with  the  necessary  data,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  phrasing  of  the  sentence  shows  that  the  speaker  had  the  si- 
clause  in  mind  when  he  uttered  the  apodosis;  for  Potin  coniectu- 
ram  face  re  taken  alone  is  manifestly  incomplete.     Here  then  it 
seems  that  the  speaker  can  have  in  mind  only  conditioned  ability, 
and  the  use  of  the  indicative  cannot  therefore  be  justified  in  the 
same  way  as  in  the  sentences  treated  under  the  preceding  head- 
ing heading.    The  explanation  which  suggests  itself  most  readily 
is  the  modality  of  the  verb,  and  if  we  were  dealing  with  a  later 
writer  there  would  be  little  more  to  say  on  the  subject.     But 
since  in  Plautus  (as  will  socm  appear)  it  is  not  always  a  modal 
verb  that  is  used  in  the  apodosis  of  sentences  like  the  one  under 
discussion,  we  ought  perhaps  to  recognize  here  also  a  further  cir- 
cumstance which  favored  the  use  of  the  indicative,  namely,  the 
somewhat  undeveloped  state  of  the  language  at  this  time.    This 
undeveloped  state,  it  will  be  remembered,  betrays  itself  in  the 
tendency  to  fail  to  distinguish  sharply  between  the  use  of  sub- 
junctive and  indicative  forms,  and  in  the  tolerance  of  unsynnnet- 
rical  sentence  structure.    Such  a  state  of  affairs  makes  the  use  of 
the  indicative  of  the  modal  verb  a  still  more  simple  matter.   IIow 
easy  it  was  for  Plautus  to  use  that  mood  of  posse  we  may  perhaps 
judge  fairly  from  the  following  passages,  in  which  he  shifts  from 
one  mood  to  the  other : 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause, 


55 


Asin  878  ff. : 
PA.  Possis  si  forte  accubantem  tuom  virum  conspexeris 
cum  corona  amplexum  amicam,  si  videas  cognoscere? 
ART.  Possum  ecastor. 

Merc.  517  ff. : 

LY.  Sed  quid  ais,  Pasicompsa? 
possin  tu,  si  ussus  venerit,  subtemen  tenue  nere? 
PA.  Possum. 

3.    Anacoluthon. 
Rud.  566 : 

Vel  ego  amare  utramvis  possum — si  probe  adpotus  siem. 

When  such  a  sentence  as  this  is  a  true  index  of  what  is  passing 
in  the  mind  of  the  speaker,  he  enunciates  the  first  clause  as  a  com- 
plete statement  of  fact.  Then  it  flashes  through  his  mind  that 
the  act  or  state  in  question  is  subject  to  a  condition  of  w^hich  he 
has  not  previously  thought,  and  this  he  adds,  rather  lamely  at 
times,  allowing  the  hearer  to  correct  the  preceding  statement  of 
fact  just  as  his  own  thought  has  been  corrected.  Syntactically 
the  effect  is  the  same  when,  as  seems  to  be  the  case  here,  the 
speaker  has  his  whole  sentence  planned  from  the  beginning,  but 
purposely  deceives  the  hearer  by  his  enunciation  of  the  first 
clause  that  he  may  raise  a  laugh  by  bringing  in  the  second  as  a 
sui-i)rise.  In  either  case  the  si-clause  is  really  part  of  another 
sentence,  and  uses  the  mood  required  by  the  laws  of  conditional 
sentences  generally,  wn'thout  reference  to  the  mood  of  the  verb 
in  tli(^  clause  which  precedes.® 

The  remaining  examples  of  the  form  si  sit — potest  are  as 
follows : 

Asin.  164: 
Solus  si  ductem,  referre  gratiam  numquam  potes. 

Aul.  557  ff. : 

praeterea  tibicinam 
(luae  mi  interbibere  sola,  si  vino  scatat, 
Corinthiensem  fontem  Pirenam  potest. 


'  In  the  example  under  discussion  the  flexibility  of  meaning  due  to  the 
modality  of  posae  tends  to  make  the  anacoluthon  less  harsh.  But  in  the 
next  main  division  (B)  where  the  non-modal  verbs  appear,  cases  will  be 
found  in  which  there  is  no  such  mitigating  circumstance. 


56 


Universitjj  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Baof'h.  479-80: 
Xullo  paeto  res  niandata  potrst  a^ri,  nisi  identideiii 
iiiamisf  ferat  ad  papillas,  labra  a  labris  nusquain  auferat?. 

Most.  351 : 
Nw  Salus  nobis  saliiti  iani  esse,  si  enpiat,  potest. 

Poen.  351 : 
8ei  sapias,  curani  banc  faeeiv  coniiH'iidi  poles. 

Poen.  864 : 

ilium  ut  ptM'dant  facere  possum,  si  wlini. 

'IVi.  Sry  ff. : 

si  id  non  fVceris, 

attjue  id  tauien  inibi  Inbeat  suspiearier, 

I         ^        ^ 

i\\u  tu  id  prohiberv  uw  poles  ne  susiMcei*? 
All  tbese  cases  may  \w  broutrht  under  tbe  tbree  lieadinjis  above 
specified.  Ditl'erent  persons  bowever  mi«rbt  bokl  diverse  views 
as  to  the  headin«r  under  wbicb  a  jriven  case  sboubl  be  brouirbt; 
l)ut  tbis  fact  bas  no  bearinir  on  tbe  present  discussiou,  my  aim 
bein*;  simply  to  sin«;le  out  tbe  varicms  distin«ruisba})U*  types  and 
to  sbow  wbat  expbinations  of  the  phenomenon  of  subjunctive 
protasis  with  indicative  apodosis  are  suited  to  tbe  peculiarities 
of  each.  I  may  however  say  that  anacoluthon  is  a  basis  of  expla- 
nation to  be  sparinj?ly  used;  for  a  speaker  usually  has  his  whole 
sentence  in  mind  before  tbe  first  word  is  uttered — even  when  in 
the  course  of  his  thoujrht  tbe  condition  does  not  come  fii-st.''  Tbe 
clearest  cases  of  anacoluthon  are  deliberately  planned  surprises 
like  Rud.  5(16. 

(b).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit  (esset) potuit. 

Cure.  226  ff . : 
Adferre  arjrentum  credo.    Nam  si  non  ferat, 
tormento  non  retineri  potuit  ferreo 
quin  reciperet  se  hue  esum  ad  praesepem  suam. 

Most.  462: 
Quo  modo  pultare  pot  id,  si  non  tan»»erem? 

These  are  both  cases  of  the  second  type,  the  (in) ability  of  the 
apodosis  bein^^  clearly  felt  as  dependent  on  the  truth  of  the  pro- 
tasis. The  explanation  would  therefore  be  a*:ain  the  modality  of 
the  verb  and  the  undeveloped  state  of  the  lanj?uage.  In  Cure. 
226  if.  the  disparity  between  ferat  and  potuit  is  specially  striking'. 
•See  Classical  Review,  1.  c.  p.  452. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-claiise. 


57 


B.— Other  Verbs  in  Apodosis. 

(a).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit est. 

1.     Unconditioned  act  or  state. 

IMerc.  480 : 
At  e^ro  si  velim,  iam  dantur  septem  et  vijrinti  minae. 

Rud.  1020  ff . : 

Xumqui  minus 
si  veniat  nunc  dominus  (pioiust,  ejro  qui  inspectavi  procul 
te  bunc  habere,  fur  sum  cpiam  tu? 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  dantur  seems  to  mean  **I  am  of- 
fered"'"— a  fact  in  no  way  dependent  on  tbe  willingness  to  accept 
the  price,  and  in  tbe  second  the  participation  in  the  guilty  secret 
is  real  whether  the  owner  of  the  property  appears  or  not.  The 
pi'ocess  wbicb  i)roduces  these  sentences  seems  to  be  the  same  as 
that  described  in  tbe  discussion  of  the  corresponding  cases  with 
posse  in  apodosis,  namely,  that  the  speaker  substitutes  for  the 
logical  apodosis  an  unconditioned  statement  which  in  a  way  in- 
cludes and  implies  that  apodosis;  thus  dantur  includes  **I  might 
have"  and  sum.^  '* would  I  be  considered?"  The  difference  be- 
tween these  two  cases  and  those  with  posse  in  apodosis  is  that  here 
the  statement  of  the  fact  is  not  so  closely  parallel  to  what  is  in- 
cluded and  implied  (there  the  logical  apodosis  was  ** could" 
or  ** would,"  and  the  statement  "can"),  and  hence  the  usage  is 
a  little  harsher. 

2.    Conditioned  act  or  state. 

Ampb.  891-92 : 
Faeiundumst  mi  illud  fieri  quod  illaec  postulat, 
si  me  illam  amantem  ad  sese  studeam  recipere. 

Cas.  528-29 : 
AL.  Attatae,  caedundus  tu  homo's:  nimias  delicias  facis. 
LY.  Quid  me  amare  refert,  nisi  sim  doctus  ac  dicaculus? 

In  the  first  of  these  cases  the  need  for  action  seems  dependent 
on  the  truth  of  the  condition;  at  any  rate  to  bring  the  example 
under  this  heading  we  must  assume  that  the  speaker  so  felt  it 
as  he  began  the  sentence.    The  second  case  is  clear  enough,  for 


10 


As  datvr  in  Cic.  ad  Att.  II.  18.  3. 


&0 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


obviously  Quid  me  amare  refert  is  meant  to  apply  to  the  con- 
trary to  fact  state  of  affairs  supposed.  If  Amph.  891-92  belongs 
here  it  is  quite  like  the  corresponding  examples  with  posse  in  apo- 
dosis,  and  the  form  of  the  sentence  is  therefore  to  be  explained 
in  the  same  way,  namely  on  the  ground  of  the  modality  of  the 
expression  and  the  undeveloped  state  of  the  language.  In  the 
second  case  the  first  part  of  this  explanation  is  excluded,  and  we 
can  only  say  that  the  use  of  the  indicative  is  the  result  of  the 
crude  grammatical  feeling  of  the  writer. 


3.    Anacoluthon. 
Mil.  685-86 : 

Nam  bona  uxor  suave  ductu,v^— si  sit  uscjuam  gentium, 
ubi  ea  possit  inveniri. 

This  example  corresponds  exactly  to  the  case  of  anacoluthon 
noted  among  the  cases  with  posse  in  apodosis,  excepting  that  the 
effect  is  not  here  softened  by  the  presence  of  a  modal  verl).  Under 
this  heading  there  are  however  some  sentences  which,  if  so  inter- 
preted, call  for  a  more  elaborate  analysis ;  f .//., 
Poen.  550: 

Onmia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos,  si  hi  spectatores  sciant. 
In  a  simple  case  of  anacoluthon  like  :\Iil.  GS'^-S^  above,  the  added 
*i-clause  corrects  the  preceding  statement  of  fact,  warning  the 
hearer  that  the  state  of  affairs  there  mentioned  is  subject  to  a 
condition  after  all.  But  if  l^oen.  550  be  regarded  as  a  case  of 
anacoluthon,  the  statement  of  fact  with  which  the  sentence  begins 
is  in  no  way  affected  by  the  addition  of  the  5/-clause.  Rathe^i-  it 
is  the  infcreuce  which  the  hearer  might  draw  from  that  state- 
ment,  namely  ^*you  need  not  tell  us''  which  is  corrected." 

Other  cases  of  the  form  si  sit— est  are  as  follows : 

Amph.  336 : 

Non  edepol  nunc  ubi  terrarum  sim  scio,  siquis  roget 
Capt.  206: 

scimus  nos  nostrum  officium  (piod  est,  si  solutos  sinat, 

n  r  ?*lft??^^'''  ^"t^Fu'^'  *"^  ""^'  *^^  ^'^^'"'■^  t<>  fi°d  which  led  Langen 
(1.  c.  p.  48)  to  reject  the  line.  ^ctu^cu 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


59 


Capt.  259-60 : 
Xeque  pol  tibi  nos,  quia  nos  servas,  aequomst  vitio  vortere 
neque  te  nobis,  si  abeamus  hinc,  si  fuat  occasio. 

Capt.  850: 
Sets  bene  esse,  si  sit  unde. 

Capt.  906 : 
Nam  si  alia  memorem  quae  ad  ventris    victum    conducunt, 
morast. 

Cure.  299: 
Recte  hie  monstrat,  si  imperare  possit. 

Men.  760 : 
quas  si  autumem  omnes,  nimis  longus  sermos^. 

Merc.  497 : 
Mcliust,  sanus  si  sis. 

:\rei-e.  692-93 : 
Paiumne  est  malai  rei  quod  amat  Demipho, 
ni  sumptuosus  insuper  etiam  siet? 

:\ril.  1263 : 

Non  edepol  tu  ilium  magis  amas  quam  ego,  mea,si  per  teliceat. 

l\)en.  921 : 
nunc  si  eadem  hie  iterum  iterem,  inscitiast. 

Ps.  740 : 
Quid?  si  opus  sit  ut  dulce  promat  indidem,  ecquid  habetf 

St.  171-72: 
Nunc  si  ridiculum  honiinem  quaerat  quispiam, 
rtnalis  ego  sum  cum  ornamentis  omnibus. 

Tri.  557-58 : 
Quin  hie  quidem  cupit  ilium  ab  se  abalienarier, 
siquem  reperire  possit,  quoi  os  sublinat. 

Here  again,  especially  when  the  apodosis  precedes,  it  is  difficult 
to  say  with  certainty  under  which  of  the  three  heads  a  given 
example  should  be  classified.  However,  Ps.  740  and  St.  171-72 
seem  clearly  of  the  first  type,  i.e.,  the  state  of  affairs  referred  to 
in  the  apodosis  is  felt  as  in  no  way  dependent  on  the  truth  of  the 
condition. 

(b).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit— erit. 
Asin.  699 : 

Vches  pol  hodie  me,  si  quidem  hoc  argentum  ferre  speres. 


60 


University  of  California  Puhlicaihnis.      [rLAss.  Phil 


Vol.  1] 


y Kiting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


61 


m 


Aul.  311 : 
Faniern  herele  iitendaiii,  si  rojres,  nuuKinani  rlabif. 

Cure.  18fi: 
Irmcere,  si  te  edeiiteni  hie  a  cibo  abijrat. 

Merc.  650-51 : 
Si  i})i  amare  forte  oeeipias  atfjue  item  eius  sit  inopia, 
iaiii  inde  porro  aufugiis/ 

Mil.  571 : 
Ne  til  herele,  si  te  di  anient,  linjriiam  compritnrs. 

Most.  56-57 : 
Ita  te  forahunt  patihulatuin  per  vias 
fstiinulis,  si  hue  reveniat  senex. 

F*oen.  729 : 
Si  pultem,  non  reel  tide t, 

Poen.  1085: 
Qiiin  niea  (iiuxjue  iste  habebit,  si(|iiid  me  fuat. 

Tri.  26-27 : 
Conrasfif/abo  pro  eommerita  noxia, 
inritus,  ni  id  me  invitet  lit  faeiam  fides.^- 

Por  the  purposes  of  the  present  diseii-jsion  the  last  example  cited 
may  he  i«rnoi*ed  because  the  apotlosis  is  really  invitus  rathei*  than 
Coneastifjabo.  The  most  strikinjr  thinjr  about  the  ^'roup  is  the 
prevalence  of  sentences  of  the  seconti  type,  i.e.,  sentences  in 
which  the  apodosis  refers  to  a  state  of  affairs  felt  as  conditioned. 
Cure.  186,  Merc.  650-51  and  Poen.  729  fas  here  punctuated^')  are 
clear  cases.  So  apparently  Asin.  699,  Most.  56-57  and  Poen. 
1085,  unless  the  first  be  a  case  of  anacoluthon.  In  the  sentences 
of  other  forms  thus  far  dealt  with  the  explanations  for  examples 
of  the  second  type  have  been  the  modality  of  the  verb  of  the 
apodosis  and  the  undeveloped  state  of  the  lanjruajre.  Here  how- 
ever none  of  the  verbs  are  modal,  and  we  are  ajrain  forced  back 
(as  in  the  case  of  Cas.  528-29)  to  the  other  line  of  explanation. 
But  in  this  cateofory  the  easy  tolerance  of  the  unsymmetrical  sen- 
tence structure  is  much  more  readily  understood.  For  the  verb  of 
the  apodosis  refers  to  the  future — a  time  realm  in  which  the 
bounds  of  indicative  and  subjunctive  mcaninor  were  perhaps  least 

"The  manuscript  reading  would  add  Baeeh.  1172  to  this  list. 
"The  more  difficult  punctuation  is  si  pultem,  uon  rechidet?  i.e.,  ''What 
if  I  knock  and  he  does  not  open?'* 


clearly  set  in  early  Latin.  Plautus  perhaps  felt  it  no  harsher  to 
use  the  futures  of  ordinary  verbs  in  this  way  than  to  so  employ 
the  presents  of  modal  verbs.  If  so,  we  can  readily  understand 
the  prevalence  of  sentences  of  the  second  type  in  this  catejiory. 

Of  the  two  cases  of  this  form  not  yet  treated,  Aul.  311  seems 
of  the  first  type,  the  action  of  the  apodosis  being  independent 
of  the  truth  of  the  protasis.  The  other  case  (Mil.  571)  has  no 
parallel  am(>n*r  the  sentences  thus  far  treated,  the  future  indica- 
tive havinjr  somethin»r  of  imperative  force.    The  whole  passage  is 

PE.  Ne  tu  herele,  si  te  di  anient,  linguam  eomprimes : 

posthac  etiam  ilhid  (piod  sceis  neseiveris 

nee  videris  quod  videris.    SC.    Bene  me  mones. 

The  line  here  between  indicative  and  subjunctive  was  not  very 
clearly  defined,  as  we  may  see  by  comparing  line  293  of  the  same 
play : 

Verum    etiam    tu  istam,  si  te  di    anient,  temere    hau  tollas 
fabulam. 


(c.)  Sentence  of  the  form  si  fuerim erit. 

Cas.  335  ff. : 
Sed  tandem  si  tu  luppiter  sis  emortuos, 
(piom  ad  deos  minoris  redierit  regnum  tuom, 
quis  mihi  subveniet  tergo  aut  capiti  aut  cruribus? 
This  also  is  an  example  of  the  second  type. 


(d.)  Sentences  of  the  form  si  esset  (fuisset)- 

Amph.  947-48: 
T't  quae  apud  legionem  vota  voviy  si  domum 
redissem  salvos,  ea  ego  exsolvam  omnia. 

Bacch.  818-19; 
Ilunc  si  ullus  deus  amaret,  plus  annis  decern, 
phis  iam  viginti  mortuom  esse  oportuit. 

Cas.  440-41 : 
Volui  Chalinum,  si  domi  esset,  mittere 
tecum  obsonatum. 

Mil.  475-76 : 

Quid  propius  fuit 
quam  ut  perirem,  si  elocutus  essem  ero? 


-fuit. 


.^.^.^^athm^Mt^m 


MiiMifnMii.iA.^^iM  lUilMMJiwiM^Hiku 


62 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phil, 


Mil.  1356-57 : 
et  si  ita  sen  tent  ia  esset,  tibi  servire  mahd 
multo  <iuain  alii  libertus  esse. 

Pers.  594-95 : 
Vide  sis,  e^o  ille  doctiis  leno  pacue  in  foveani  (hridi, 
ni  hie  adesses. 

Ps.  285 : 
Fuit  occasio,  si  vellet,  iam  pridem  arjrentnin  ut  daret. 

Ps.  1241-42: 
At  ej^o  iani  intus  proinani  vi«rinti  n:inas 
qnas  promisi,  si  effeeisset. 

St.  563 : 

Senex  (luidein  coluit,  si  posset,  indipisei  de  cibo. 

Tri.  566 : 
Licit  umsf,  si  v<'lles. 

True.  140: 
Si  rem  servasseni,  fuit  ubi  neirotiosns  esseni. 

Obviously  some  of  these  sentences  belonir  to  the  eate«rories  above 
descril)ed.  Mil.  1356-57  and  True.  140  are  most  clearly  of  the 
first  type,  and  Baeeh.  818-19  nnd  :\Til.  475-76  of  the  second,  with 
the  modal  verb  oportcre  in  the  former.  The  fact  that  the  apo- 
dosis  [)reccdes  in  Ps.  285  and  Tri.  566  makes  exact  analysis  diffi- 
cult. The  other  eases  of  this  j?roup  have  peculiarities:  Cas.  440- 
41  and  St.  563  (with  forms  of  vclle  in  apodosis)  are  hard  to  deal 
with  because  one  scarcely  knows  whether  to  treat  r(U(  or  its  infin- 
itive as  tlie  apodosis  proper.  Aniph.  947-48  and  Ps.  1241-42  are 
simply  abridjred;  in  the  latter  case,  for  instance,  vif/inti  minas 
quas  pnnnisi  means  of  course  "twenty  minae  which  I  promised  to 
jrive."  and  it  is  in  this  idea  of  o:ivin«r  that  the  .s/-clause  finds  its 
lojrieal  apodosis.'* 

The  one  remaininir  case  (Pei-s.  594-95)  is  the  most  interestiuir 
of  the  whole  jrroup.  It  is  one  of  the  rare  examples''  in  Plautus 
of  the  contrary  to  fact  type  of  sentence  which  tells  what  was  on 
the  point  of  happeninir  but  which  did  not  come  to  pass  because 
of  an  interveniuir  circumstance.  Were  it  not  for  paene  we  might 
perha]>s  be  inclined  to  count  this  another  example  of  the  second 

"  I'f.  Tri.  8.H5  ff.,  which  may  be  so  punctuated  as  to  form  a  parallel. 
"  C'f .  Ps.  499. 


uiiaiailiiiiiiduitLuiiiiyiii'r  uj 


iLkt 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


63 


type — decidi  would  then  be  a  mere  piece  of  exaggeration.  But 
paene  disqualifies  hs  clause  for  being  the  apodosis  of  ni  hie  ades- 
ses:  for  the  realization  in  fact  of  that  condition  would  have  meant 
actual  falling  in.  not  almost  falling  in.  The  phrase  ego  ille  doc- 
tus  leno  paene  in  fovcam  decidi  is  therefore  worded  without  ref- 
erence to  the  addition  of  the  ^/-clause  at  the  end,  and  as  a  matter 
of  fact  it  is  in  itself  a  complete  and  precise  statement  needing 
no  further  qualification.  In  other  words  we  seem  to  have  to  do 
with  a  case  of  anacoluthon,  but  this  is  different  from  any  exarii- 
ples  of  the  phenomenon  yet  taken  up.  A  comparison  of  the  fol- 
lowing sentences  will  make  this  point  clear. 

Xe]  ego  a  ma  re  utramvis  possum — si  probe  adpotus  siem. 
Omnia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos — si  hi  spectatores  sciant. 
Ego  .    .    .   paene  in  foveam  decidi — ni  tu  adesses. 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  the  speaker  corrects  the  opening 
lemark  by  the  use  of  the  sZ-clause,  letting  the  hearer  know  that 
the  state  of  aiiairs  there  asserted  is  after  all  subject  to  a  condi- 
tion. In  the  second  the  si-clause  is  added  as  a  necessary  check 
on  the  hearer's  unconditioned  inference  from  the  statement  Otn- 
nia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos,  namely  **you  need  not  enumerate 
them. ' '  In  the  last  example  neither  of  these  things  is  true ;  paene 
in  foveam  decidi  and  the  obvious  inference  to  be  drawn  from  it 
("I  did  not  fall  in")  are  both  facts  subject  to  no  condition,  and 
neither  therefore  needs  a  corrective  w«-clause;  and  such  is  not 
the  function  of  ni  hie  adesses.  Rather,  this  contrary  to  fact  phrase 
is  used  to  imply  the  reason  why  the  speaker  did  not  fall  into  the 
trap.  Without  makinir  any  elaborate  analysis  it  is  clear  that  this 
implication  is  the  chief  function  of  the  clause;  for  the  speaker 
is  obviously  using  the  words  to  express  his  obligation  to  the 
hearer  for  his  presence  (and  advice),  representing  them  as  the 
cause  of  his  escape.  In  other  words,  ni  hie  adesses  does  not  cor- 
rect the  preceding  statement  or  the  unconditioned  inference  from 
it  C'l  did  not  fall  in"),  but  it  further  extends  the  thought  of 
the  sentence  by  assigning  the  cause  for  the  thing  to  be  inferred. 
It  is  customary  to  treat  sentences  of  this  sort  as  the  result  of 
ellipsis,  but  the  above  analysis  suggests  another  possible  line  of 
explaiuition.    In  Plautus  there  are  many  regularly  formed  con- 


PI 


64 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Xntting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


65 


trary  to  fact  conditional  sentences  whose  chief  function  is  to 
assij?n  a  reason  for  an  existing  or  past  state  of  affairs;  e.g.. 

Mil.  12H2: 
MI.  Non  video.     I'hist  ?     AC.  Videres  pol,  si  aniares.^® 

In  this  passajre  Videres  takes  co«rnizance  of  the  fact  stated  in  the 
precedinjr  speech  (Sim  video),  and  the  .s/-clause  assi«rns  the  rea- 
son for  that  fact,  i.e.,  that  the  fii*st  speaker  is  not  really  in  love. 
In  the  sentence  under  discussion  ( paeue  in  fovtam  deeidi,  ni  Jfie 
adesses),  at  the  end  of  the  fir*st  clause  the  speaker  may  become 
conscious  that  his  words  take  cotrnizance  of  the  fact  that  he  did 
not  fall  in,  just  as  would  have  been  the  case  had  he  said  (heidis- 
xf //^  and  this  p«'rhaps  tempted  him  to  use,  in  acknowlcdirin«r  the 
cause  of  his  not  fallin*;  in,  the  form  which  is  »renerally  employed 
only  whiMi  the  fact  for  which  a  reason  is  assitrned  is  implied  by  a 
contrary  to  fact  subjunctive  apodosis,  as  in  Mil.  12()2  above. 

(e).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  esset fuerat  (erat.) 

Baech.  563  ff.: 
Quid?  tibi  non  erat  nieretricum  aliannn  Athenis  copia, 
(juibuscum  halxMvs  reuK  nisi  cum  ilia  (juam  cuo  mandass(»m 

tibi, 
(K'ciperes  tute  etiani  amare   .    .    .    f 

Mil.  52-53: 
Quid  in  Cappadocia,  ubi  tu  (|uin*rentos  sinnil, 
ni  hebes  nuichaera  foret,  uno  ietu  o'cideras? 

St.  512-13: 
Et  niajris  i)ar  fur  rat  me  vobis  dare  cenam  advenientibus, 
qiuini  nie  ad  ilium  promittere,  nisi  nollem  ei  advoi*sarier. 

The  interesting:  example  of  this  jrrouj)  is  Mil.  52-53,  showin»r  as 
it  does  the  same  sort  of  /< /-clause  as  appears  in  Peis.  594-95,  which 
has  just  been  discussed  at  lenjrth.  The  explanation  here  however 
is  much  easier,  for  the  ///-clause  precedes,'"  and  the  action  re- 
ferred to  in  the  apodosis  obviously  depends  on  the  cominj;  to 
pass  of  the  condition  that  was  not  realized.  This  therefore  is  but 
another  example  of  the  second  type,  and  is  to  be  explained  partly 

"  The  other  cases  are  enumerated  in  the  Anierit^an  Journal  of  Philology, 
Vol.  XXII,  p.  310  ff. 

"  This  precludes  treating  the  sentence  as  a  case  of  anacoluthou. 


in  the  same  way  ;).■;  others  of  that  class,  partly  on  the  jrround  of 
the  spirit  of  exairireration  that  pervades  the  passag:e  in  which  the 
sentence  occurs.'®  The  other  two  cases  in  this  «:roup  seem  also 
to  be  examples  of  the  second  type;  St.  512-13  has  a  modal  verb 
in  apodosis. 

In  snmniintr  np  the  results  of  this  study  with  reference  to 
j)ui'e  conditional  sentences,  it  may  be  remembered  that  we  began 
with  the  assumption  that  Plautus  had  a  fairly  clear  conception 
of  the  same  mood  in  both  clauses  as  the  norm.  The  problem  in 
hand  is  therefore  to  discover  the  I'casons  why  some  sentences  do 
not  conform  to  that  norm.  P^our  such  reasons  have  been  enu- 
merated. 

1.  The  fact  that  the  state  of  affairs  mentioned  in  the  apodosis 
is  often  in  no  way  dependent  on  the  truth  of  the  protasis;  the 
indicative  statement  includes  and  implies  what  would  be  in  the 
supposed  case. 

2.  The  modal  meaninj;  of  certain  verbs,  notably  posse. 

3.  The  union  of  a  complete  sentence  and  a  part  of  another  by 
anacoluthou.  The  form  of  each  member  of  the  expression  is  de- 
termined by  the  thought  it  is  to  convey,  irrespective  of  the  form 
of  the  other  member. 

4.  The  somewhat  undeveloped  state  of  the  language  in  Plau- 
tus' day,  as  shown  (a)  in  irregular  sentence  structure  and  (b) 
in  the  not  very  precise  use  of  mood  forms.  This  method  of  expla- 
nation finds  its  most  sweeping  application  in  cases  referring  to 
the  future:  for  there  the  fact  that  the  realms  of  indicative 
and  subjunctive  meanings  were  not  carefully  differentiated 
tended  to  make  the  lack  of  symmetry  in  sentence  structure  still 
less  noticeable  to  Plautus  than  it  would  otherwise  have  been. 
Aside  from  sentences  referring  to  the  future  there  are  very  few 


IH    Wit 


With  regard  to  such  sentences  as  this  it  should  be  remembered  also 
that  at  this  time  Latin  was  in  the  midst  of  the  process  of  adopting  the 
use  of  the  secondary  tenses  for  the  expression  of  the  contrary  to  fact  idea. 
In  Greek  it  was  the  indicative  that  was  chosen  when  a  similar  shift  of  tense 
was  made  in  that  language,  and  it  is  possible  that  we  should  recognize  in 
early  Latin  some  sporadic  and  unorganized  impulses  to  develop  in  that  way 
rather  than  toward  the  use  of  the  subjunctive.     Cf.  Men.  195  (si  amabas), 


regard 

to   the  case  under  discussion   Brix   seems  to   lay   too   much   stress   on   the 
demands  of  the  metre;  cf.  his  note  ibid.  131. 


Hi' 


m 


University  of  California  Publicatiom.     [Class.  Phil. 


cases  for  which  this  is  the  only  possible  line  of  explanation.  Gen- 
erally it  is  to  be  combined  with  others,  as  for  instance  with  2 
above.  One  or  two  combinations  with  factors  not  here  enumer- 
ated were  mentioned  in  the  discussion  of  individual  cases.  ^* 

IL-CONCESSIVE  SENTENCES. 

(a).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit est. 

Asin.  318-19: 
Si  quidem  omnes  coniurati  cruciamenta  conferant, 
habeo  opinor  familiarem  tergum,  ne  quaeram  foris. 

Asin.  933 : 
Pol  si  aliud  nil  sit,  tui  me,  uxor,  pudet. 

Bacch.  128: 
Qui  si  decern  habeas  lin^aias,  mutum  esse  addecet. 

Bacch.  1045-46: 
Si  plus  perdundum  sit,  periisse  suariust 
quam  illud  flajjitium  vol«:o  dispalesccre. 

Cas.  314  ff. : 
Quin  si  nolis  filiusque  etiam  tuos, 
vobis  invitis  atque  amborum  ingratiis 
una  libella  liber  possum  fieri. 

Cist.  27  ff . : 

Si  idem  istud  nos  faciamus,  si  idem  imitemur,  ita  tamen  vix 

vivim  us 
cum  invidia  summa. 

Merc.  841 : 
Ibi  quidem  si  re*rnum  detur,  ncm  cupitast  civitas. 

Pers.  40-41 : 
Quin  si  ejromet  totus  veneam,  vix  recipi  pofis  est 
(|uod  tu  me  rogas. 

Ps.  291 : 

Atque  adeo,  si  facere  possim,  pietas  prohihet. 

St.  43  ff . : 
Et  si  illi  improbi  sint   .    .    . 
nostrum  officium  meminisse  decet. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  8i-clause. 


m 


"The  jussive  force  of  the  future  indicative   (Mil.  r>71)   and  the  exag- 
geration which  pervades  the  passage  in  which  Mil.  53  occurs. 


Tri.  1186 : 
Nam  si  pro  peccatis  centum  ducat  uxoris,  parumst. 

True.  877 : 
Factum  cupio :  nam  nefacere  si  velim,  non  est  locus. 

The  sentences  of  this  group  well  illustrate  the  tendency  of  the 
concessive  ^/-clause  to  precede  its  conclusion ;  here  there  is  not  a 
single  variation  from  the  rule.  Excepting  in  Cist.  27  ff.  and 
possibly  in  Merc.  841  the  ^/-clause  is  a  mere  supposition,  and 
takes  the  subjunctive  mood  for  the  same  reason  that  that  mood 
is  employed  in  pure  conditional  sentences  of  the  ideal  and  con- 
trary to  fact  types.  Having  begun  his  sentences  with  such  a  si- 
clause.  Plautus  nevertheless  does  not  hesitate  to  complete  them 
with  an  indicative  conclusion,  and  such  a  course  is  not  without 
justification.  For  in  the  above  examples  it  will  be  found  that  the 
conclusion  refers  regularly  to  a  state  of  affairs  actually  existing 
and  which  would  continue  to  exist  despite  the  coming  to  pass  of 
what  is  supposed  in  the  si-clause.  Both  of  these  things  the 
speaker  cannot  express  at  one  and  the  same  time,  though  perhaps 
in  some  cases  he  finds  it  possible  to  follow  a  middle  course  by 
using  the  indicative  when  the  verb  chances  to  be  modal.  But 
with  other  verbs  at  any  rate  he  must  make  a  choice;  by  the  use 
of  the  indicative  he  can  assert  the  existing  state  of  a/fairs,  allow- 
ing the  hearer  to  gather  that  the  same  state  would  continue  under 
the  adverse  circumstances  supposed,  and  on  the  other  hand  by 
employing  the  subjunctive  he  can  confine  himself  to  what  woidd 
be  true  despite  those  circumstances,  leaving  it  to  the  hearer  to 
infer  the  actually  existing  state  of  affairs.  Either  mood  is  there- 
fore justified  by  the  nature  of  the  situation  and  the  underlying 
thought.  The  indicative  is  the  more  vigorous  and  comprehensive 
form  of  expression  •  whereas  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  appeals  to 
a  mind  trained  to  grammatical  niceties  as  producing  a  more  sym- 
metrical sentence  structure. 

Consequently  in  Cicero  the  subjunctive  is  the  normal  and  reg- 
ular usage ;  e.g.^ 

p.  Sulla  13.38 : 

Ne  si  argueret  quidem  turn  denique  ...  id  mihi  crimino- 
sum  videretur. 


r 
ii' 


ftf; 


68 


University  of  California  Publications.      [C'l-vss.  Phil. 


When  as  here  the  supposition  is  contrary  to  fact,  the  choice  of 
the  secondary  tenses  of  the  subjunctive  in  the  conclusion  makes 
the  speaker  use  the  form  of  unreality  of  somethin*:  which  .is  as  a 
matter  of  fact  true.  Nevertheless  in  the  orations  alone  there  are 
some  seventy  cases  in  which  a  ^/-clause  containin<r  the  imperfect 
or  pluperfect  subjunctive  forces  its  conclusion  to  a«rree  in  mood 
with  itself.-"    Even  modal  verbs  seldom  rt^sist  the  pressure;  (.(j., 

p.  Arch.  7.17: 
Quodsi  ipsi  haec  nc(|ue  attin«rere  ne(|ue  sensu  nostro  »,nistare 
possemus,  tamen  ea  mirari  debcrcmus.-^ 

A  case  where,  instead  of  allowing:  the  .s/-clause  to  force  the  use 
of  the  imperfect  subjunctive  in  the  conclusion  (as  in  the  two 
examples  just  j^iven)  Cicero  ch(K)ses  to  simply  assert  the  existing 
state  of  affairs,  is  <renerally  counted  noteworthy;  e.g., 

Lael.  27.  104: 
Si  illis  plane  orbatus  essem,  ma.irnum  tauuMi  adfnt  mihi  aetas 
ipsa  solacium.-- 

Plautus'  usiijre  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  this,  as  at  (mce  appears 
when  we  compare  those  concessive  clauses  in  which  he  uses  the 
forms  si  sit — est  and  si  sit — erit  with  those  in  which  the  form  si 
sit — sit  appears.  Omittintr  for  the  tiine  beinj^:  Cist.  27  ff.  and 
^Ferc.  841  which  (one  or  both)  have  a  peculinrity  which  disquali- 
fies for  participation  in  this  comparison,  there  have  been  cited 
above  ten  cases  of  the  form  si  sit — est;  below  thei*e  will  be  jriven 
four  of  the  form  si  sit — ( rit.  Over  against  these  fourteen  cases 
of  the  indicative  in  the  conclusion,  even  by  including'  two  pass- 
ajres  in  which  the  text  is  corrupt,  tliere  are  but  five  examples-"*  of 
the  form  si  sit — sit,  that  is,  five  examples  in  which  the  influence 

"  See  Amer.  Jour.  Phil.,  Vol.  XXF,  p.  270  ff. 

-•'So  also,  oporteret    (in   Verr.    II,   1,   27,   70;    IT,   2,   6,   In  and  40,  09; 

If,  4,   51,   114,   «le   prov.   i-ons.    14,  35);    dehtrem    (tie   prov.   eons.   20,  47; 

deheretis  (p.  Tiill.  15,  36);  deberent  (in  Verr.  II,  3,  40,  91);  possem  (in 


Imp.  t'onip 

~  Cf.  p.  Sulla  30,  83,  and  the  preceding  note  fin. 

^  There  are  three  other  eases  of  this  form,  but  they  are  excluded  here 
because  the  subjunctive  of  the  conclusion  can  be  otlierwise  explained— 
characteristic  (Bacch.  179),  dependent  on  ut  (Tri.  487),  .jussive  (True. 
855). 


Vol.  1] 


Xutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause, 


69 


of  the  subjunctive  .sZ-clause  was  stronjx  enoup:h  to  move  the 
speaker  to  choose  the  more  synuiietrical  but  less  vijrorous  form 
of  conclusion.  And  whereas  in  Cicero  ev^n  modal  verbs  seldom 
resist  levelinjr,  in  these  examples  just  mentioned  Plautus  nowhere 
levels  a  modal  verb.  Surely  if  we  needed  any  additional  evidence 
to  prove  Plautus*  freedom  from  the  thrall  of  hard  and  fast  j?ram- 
matical  conceptions,  we  have  it  here. 

The  five  cases  in  which  he  uses  the  foi'm  .s/  sit — sit  are  as 
follows : 

Aul.  555  ff. : 
Quos  si  Ar<rus  servet,  (pii  oculeus  totus  fuit, 
is  num(juam  srrrct. 

Bacch.  697: 
Quem  si  orem  ut  mihi  nil  credat,  id  non  ausit  credere. 

Tri.  885  ff. : 
Si  ante  lucemf  ire  occipias  a  meo  primo  nomine, 
concubiinn  sit  noctis  priuscpiam  ad  postrennnn  perveneris. 

True.  315-16: 
Si  ecastor  hie  homo  senapi  victitet,  uoii  ccnscam 
tam  esse  tristem  posse. 

True.  527-28: 
rSih  plane  ex  medio  mari 
savium  petere  tuom  iubeas,  petere  hau  pigcatf  mel  meiun. 

Few  cjs  these  cases  are,  they  still  su«r^est  one  of  the  ways  in  which 
a  concessive  .s/-clause  containin^i;  the  subjunctive  tended  to  exert 
a  level  1  in*;  influence  on  its  conclusion.  In  the  first  passaj?e  cited 
Euclio  is  iinich  distressed  for  fear  the  cooks  will  steal  something, 
and  the  thoujrht  he  wishes  to  convey  is  that  thoutrh  Argus  him- 
self should  undertake  to  watch  them,  still  they  could  not  be  kept 
from  pilfering.  Had  the  conclusion  been  phrased  in  this  way 
the  verb  would  doubtless  have  been  in  the  indicative,  but  the 
emphatic  Argus  of  the  si-clause  has  tempted  Plautus  to  resume 
the  emphasis  in  the  conclusion  with  is,  and  he  has  thereby  com- 
mitted himself  to  a  periphrasis  in  which  anything  but  the  sub- 
junctive is  difficult;  for  how^  can  the  clause  be  made  a  statement 
describing  the  existing  state  of  affairs  when  Argus  is  the  subject 
of  discourse — a  personage  who  has  no  connection  with  that  state 
of  affairs,  and  who  is  after  all  only  a  figment  of  the  imagination  ? 


% 


i 

i 


70 


XJniversity  of  California  Fuhlications.      [('lass.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


71 


HI 


i* 


The  only  thinjr  left  for  the  speaker  to  do  is  to  accept  the  other 
alternative  and  state  what  would  be  despite  the  selection  of  so 
^'ood  a  ^lardian.  allowing;  the  hearer  to  infer  the  existinjr  state 
of  affairs.-*  The  second  passajre  above  cited  is  of  precisely  the 
same  sort,  the  emphatic  nil  of  the  sZ-elause  beinjr  echoed  by  id  of 
the  conclusion ;  havinjr  be*run  with  this  word  the  speaker  would 
find  it  difficult  to  complete  the  clause  as  a  statement  of  fact  de- 
scriptive of  the  existintr  state  of  affair's.  -The  remaininir  thn^e 
eases  have  no  resumptive  word  in  their  conclusions;  but  the  si- 
clauses  each  contain  an  emphatic  word  or  phrase  which  would 
have  allowed  of  resumption  (ante  lucem,  Tri.  885,  senapi.  True. 
315,  ex  medio  mari.  True.  527),  and  the  speaker  may  have  felt 
something  of  resumptive  force  even  though  he  did  not  definitely 
express  it.  xVt  any  »*ate  the  conclusion  in  each  ease  is  worded  so 
as  to  fit  such  a  resumptive  word  or  i)hrase.  and  not  as  it  probably 
would  have  l)een  if  the  speaker  had  p'ainied  for  an  indicative 
clause  descriptive  of  the  existinj;  state  of  affairs. 

In  cases  like  these  last  three  where  the  ^/-clause  contains  an 
emphatic  element  that  mi^rht  be,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  is  not, 
resumed  in  the  conclusion,  Plautus'  usa^'e  probably  varies.  Thus 
in  Bacch.  128  thoujrh  the  verb  is  modal  he  has  perhaps  chosen 
to  assert  in  the  conclusion  the  existin»r  state  of  affairs: 

Qui  si  decem  habeas  lin«ruas,  mutum  esse  addecet. 
Had  he  allowed  himself  a  ri^umptive  phrase,  we  w^onder  whether 
even  the  modal  verb  would  have  resisted  the  pressure.  In  En<r- 
lish  at  any  rate  we  have  no  option — we  cannot  say  ''Thouj?h  you 
had  ten  tonjrues,  with  the  ten  it  is  fitting  that  you  be  silent,"  for 
the  ten  tonjrues  do  not  exist.  We  must  say  '*with  ten  ton<rues  it 
would  be  fittiuir,  etc."    Cf.  Tri.  1186. 

Before  leaving  this  group  of  sentences  of  the  form  si  sit — est, 
a  word  should  be  added  with  reference  to  Cist.  27  ff.  aiul  Merc. 


-■*  In  terms  of  the  precetling  jmper  such  an  example  is  an  intensive  con- 
cessive sentence.  Euclio  is  not  content  with  any  reasonable  concession  siu-h 
as  ** Though  we  watch  them,''  but  in  his  desire  for  emphasis  he  flies  to  the 
most  extrtniK^  of  suppositions,  "Though  Argus  shouhl  watch  them."  Such 
concessive  clauses  are  a  mannerism  with  Plautus.  When  the  element  which 
rentiers  the  supposition  extreme  is  something  other  than  the  verb  (here 
Argus),  the  perio«lic  nature  of  the  concessive  sentence  naturally  inclines  the 
speaker  to  resume  the  emphasis  in  the  conclusion  by  a  pronoun  or  the  like 
(here  is),  thus  introducing  into  that  clause  an  element  which  is  as  little 
suited  as  the  word  resumed  to  be  a  factor  in  a  description  of  the  existing 
state  of  affairs. 


841.  These  are  what  might  be  called  general  concessive  sen- 
tences,'-^ differing  from  the  others  in  that  the  si-clause  neither 
refers  to  the  future  nor  is  it  contrary  to  fact,  but  rather  (most 
clearly  in  Cist.  27  ff.)  deals  with  something  which  does  happen 
at  least  occasionally.  Such  a  sZ-clause  is  quite  analogous  to  a 
general  *' condition,"  w^here  the  same  use  of  the  subjunctive  oc- 
curs, notably  when  the  subject  of  the  verb  is  the  indefinite  second 
singular.  Such  a  subjunctive  ^/-clause,  even  in  the  strictest 
Latin,  exercises  little  leveling  force  on  its  conclusion.  It  was  for 
this  reason  that  these  two  cases  w^ere  excluded  in  the  comparison 
jnade  to  determine  the  ratio  of  indicative  to  subjunctive  in  the 
conclusions  of  concessive  clauses  of  the  form  si  sit;  their  inclusion 
would  have  increased  a  little,  and  perhaps  unfairly,  the  number 
of  indicative  cases. 

(b).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit —  erit  (futurus  est). 

Amph.  450-51 : 
Quadrigas  si  nunc  inscendas  lovis 
at(|ue  bine  fugias,  ita  vix  poteris  effugere  infortunium. 

Asin.  414-15: 
Siquidem  here  I  e  nunc  sunmium  lovcm  te  dicas  detinuisse 
atque  is  precator  adsiet,  malam  rem  effugies  numquam. 

Bacch.  1004: 
Nam  ego  non  laturus  sum,  si  iubeas  maxume. 

Ep.  610-11 : 
Si  undecim  deos  praeter  sese  secum  adducat  luppiter 
ita  non  onuies  ex  cruciatu  potcrunt  eximere  Epidicum. 

In  this  group  the  conclusion  refers  to  something  that  will  not 
take  place  and  w^ould  (still)  not  take  place  despite  the  coming  to 
pass  of  the  state  of  affairs  supposed  in  the  5i-clause.  Not  being 
able  to  express  all  this  definitely  in  a  single  clause,  the  speaker 
may  either  assert  that  the  thing  in  question  will  not  take  place 
or  that  it  would  not,  (even)  in  the  case  supposed.  The  first  of 
these  alternatives  seems  to  be  chosen  in  the  second  and  third 
examples.  In  the  other  two  cases,  despite  the  indicative  of  the 
conclusion,  it  appears  as  though  the  speaker  intended  to  accept 
the  second  alternative,  giving  expression  to  what  would  come  to 


29 


See  Amer.  Jour.  Phil.,  Vol.  XXIV,  p.  300  ff. 


72 


Umversitu  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


73 


1! 


iiifi 


pass.  For  in  both  sentences  the  emphatic  elements  of  the  si- 
clause  are  echoed  by  ita  (**even  so"),  which  seems  to  restrict  the 
conclusion  to  the  supposed  case;  and  in  Ej).  610-11  such  restric- 
tion is  further  indicated  by  the  carrying;  over  of  the  emphatic 
subject  of  discoui-se  from  the  ,s/-clause  to  the  conclusion,  and  the 
result  thus  produced  on  the  phrasin«r  there;-'"  for  otherwise  the 
clause  would  naturally  have  taken  the  form  ''nevertheless  Epi- 
dicus  cannot  be  saved,"  as  in  the  very  similar  case  in 

Asin.  414-15: 
Si  (piidem  hercle  runic  sununum  lovem  te  dicas  detinuisse 
atijue  is  precatoi'  adsiet,  malam  rem  ett'u»ries  nuuKiuam. 

The  question  is  therefore  why  the  indicative  is  used  in  the  two 
sentences  under  discussion  (Ami)h.  450-51  and  Ep.  f)10-ll).  The 
answer  is  to  be  found  i)artly  in  the  fact  that  the  verb  in  l)()th 
cases  is  poss(\  partly  in  the  reference  to  the  future — the  point 
where  indicative  and  subjunctive  are  least  clearly  distinjruished  -^ 
The  only  coruM'ssive  sentences  of  the  form  si  sit — sit  with 
which  those  of  this  «rroup  may  be  compared  are  the  five  (pioted 
in  the  discussion  of  the  form  si  sit — rsf. 

(c).  Sentence  of  the  form  si  sit fuit. 

Rud.  159: 
Si  non  moneas,  nosmet  nu minimus. 

By  virtue  of  its  lueaninjr  this  sentence  mirrht  have  been  treated 
with  those  of  the  form  si  sit—rst.    Its  explanation  is  the  same. 

(d).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  esset  (fuisset) fuit. 

Cure.  449  ff. : 

Quia  enim  in  cavea  si  forent 
conclusi  itidem  ut  pulli  jrallinacei 
ita  non  potuetr  uno  anno  circumirier. 

JMerc.  595-96 : 
Sed  ttanien  demsi  prodajrrosis  pedibus  esset  Eutychus, 
iam  a  portu  redisse  pot  u it. 


=•866  the  discussion  above  of  concessive  sentences  of  the  form  si  sit— sit. 

="  My  colleague  Prof.  Prescolt  calls  attention  also  to  the  minatory  force 
of  Amph.  450-51. 


Merc.  694-95 : 
fDecem  si  ad  cenam  vocasset  summos  viros 
nimium  opsonavit. 

Mil.  803-04 : 
Non  potuit  reperire,  si  ipsi  Soli  quaerendas  dares, 
lepidiores  duas  ad  banc  rem  quam  ego. 

Ps.  792-93 : 
Nam  ego  si  iuratus  peiorem  hominem  quaererem 
coqum,  non  potui  quam  hunc  quern  duco  ducere.-* 

In  this  group  the  conclusion  refers  to  a  present  or  past  state  of 
affairs  which  w^ould  be  (would  have  been)  unchanged  despite  the 
coming  to  pass  of  the  thing  supposed.  In  Merc.  694-95  the  speaker 
seems  clearly  to  choose  the  alternative  of  asserting  the  past  state 
of  affairs.  The  other  four  cases  contain  the  verb  posse,  and  there- 
fore, though  in  the  indicative,  may  conceivably  refer  to  what 
w^ould  be  or  would  have  been;  this  seems  to  be  the  case  in  Mil. 
803-04,  for  the  emv>hatic  Soli  of  the  s«-clause  provides  a  subject  of 
discoui*se  for  the  conclusion,  thus  dominating  the  phrasing  of 
that  member  of  the  sentence  and  restricting  it  to  the  supposed 
case  (see  the  discussion  above  of  Ep.  610-11)  :  ita  of  Cure.  449  ff. 
looks  in  the  same  direction.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  remaining 
two  cases  is  not  clear. 

With  the  sentences  of  this  group  may  be  compared  two  of  the 
form  si  esset  (fuisset)— fuisset,  Men.  238  ff.  and  Most.  241-42. 
The  first  of  these  is  an  interesting  illustration  of  the  resumption 
of  emphasis  and  its  restricting  effect. 

(e).  Sentence  of  the  form  si  fuisset futurus  erat. 

Cist.  152-53 : 

(luod  si  tacuisset,  tamen 
ego  eram  diet ur us. 

This  case  is  interesting  as  being  apparently  the  only  example  of 
its  kind  in  Plautus,  though  of  course  it  is  of  a  type  common 
enough  later.  As  a  conclusion  of  quod  si  tacuisset  Plautus'  usage 
elsewhere  would  lead  us  to  expect  either  a  statement  of  the  fact 
of  the  case  (''I  shall  tell")  or  an  announcement  that  this  state 
of  affairs  would  be  undisturbed  even  under  the  supposed  circum- 


2«  /' 


('f.  the  corrupt  C'apt.  417-18. 


nMti   ..    a.. 


74 


University  of  California  Publications,     [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


75 


stances  (**I  should  have  told").  Following  his  usual  procedure 
he  leans  toward  the  first  of  these  alternatives,  but  substitutes  "I 
was  prepared  to  teir^  tor  ''I  shall  tell."  Thouj?h  rare  in  con- 
cessive sentences,  such  substitution  is  very  frequent  in  Plautus 
generally:  everywhere  we  find  expressions  of  ability,  willinjrness. 
readiness,  habit  and  the  like  substituted  for  assertions  that  some- 
thing will  be  brought  to  pass.-®  The  really  noteworthy  thing  in 
this  ease  is  the  tense — which  however  is  a  question  that  belongs 
to  the  history  of  the  contrary  to  fact  construction  rather  than  to 
a  discussion  of  the  concessive  sentence. 

It  is  perhaps  hardly  necessary  to  sum  up  what  has  been 
brought  out  in  the  preceding  discussion.  I  may  however  say 
again  that  in  concessive  sentences  of  the  kind  treated  in  this 
paper  the  conclusi^m  regularly  refers  to  a  state  of  affairs  actually 
existent  and  which  would  be  undisturbed  even  in  the  ease  sup- 
posed.^" The  speaker  nuist  in  general  choose  which  of  the  two 
things  he  will  state,  the  first  naturally  calling  for  the  indicative 
and  the  second  for  the  subjunctive.  Iii  the  case  of  modal  verbs 
it  is  hard  at  times  to  determine  which  course  a  speaker  meant  to 
follow,  and  it  is  possible  that  occasi^mally  in  such  examples  he 
did  not  make  a  conscious  choice. 

To  assert  the  existing  state  of  affaii-s  is  umiuestionably  the 
more  vigorous  and  eom[)rehensive  form  of  expression,  and  it  is 
not  strange  that  it  was  a  favorite  with  Plautus,  though  the  sub- 
junctive was  the  rule  later,  even  in  the  case  of  modal  verbs.  The 
few  examples  in  which  Plautus  uses  the  subjunctive  would  seem 
to  show  that  he  wvis  moved  in  that  direction,  at  least  in  part,  by 
the  fact  that  an  emphatic  element  of  the  sZ-clause  echoed  in  the 
conclusion  tends  to  conuuit  the  speaker  to  a  turn  of  phrase  un- 
suited  to  be  a  description  of  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  After 
his  time  doubtless  a  nmch  more  important  and  sweeping  influence 

^,  .r^  ^'"^"-  ^16-l'»  ^hich  has  been  already  discussed,  and  Amer.  Jour. 
Phil.,  Vol.  XXIV,  p.  294. 

"This  is  an  essential  and  fundamental  characteristic  of  the  concessive 
periods.  Occasionally  there  appears  a  pure  conditional  sentence  which  has 
a  very  similar  accidental  characteristic,  namely  that  the  apodosis  refers  to 
an  action  or  state  of  aflFairs  which  would  occur  in  the  supposed  case  but 
whose  happening  as  a  matter  of  fact  is  not  dependent  on  the  truth  of  the 
condition.  Such  conditional  sentences  provide  examples  of  the  first  type 
discussed,  and  the  explanation  of  indicative  apodosis  there  is  very  similar  to 
that  of  indicative  conclusion  here. 


was  exerted  by  the  growing  appreciation  of  grammatical  sym- 
metry which  demanded  a  subjunctive  conclusion  for  a  subjunc- 
tive concessive  5i-clause,  on  the  analogy  of  pure  conditional  sen- 
tences. 

III.-SI  IN  OBJECT  CLAUSES. 

This  not  altogether  satisfactory  heading  is  designed  to  de- 
scribe such  si-clauses  as  complete  the  meaning  of  a  statement  of 
fact— a  function  very  different  from  that  of  a  si-clause  in  a  con- 
ditional period  or  concessive  sentence.  These  object  clauses  are 
also  peculiar  in  position;  for  in  the  conditional  period  the  si- 
clause  may  either  precede  or  follow,  in  the  concessive  sentence  it 
almost  ahvays  precedes,  but  here  it  regularly  follows. 

(a).  Sentences  of  the  form  si  sit est. 

A.— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Expectation  and  Waiting. 

Cas.  540 : 
Quae  iam  dudum,  si  arcessatur,  ornata  exspectat  domi. 

Cas.  542 : 

Intus  ilia  te,  si  se  arcessas,  manet. 

Poen.  12  : 
lam  dudum  expeclo,  si  tuom  officium  scias. 

Tri.  98 : 
ExpectOy  siquid  dicas. 

Tri.  148 : 
Ausculto,  sitpiid  dicas. 

In  the  first  two  of  these  sentences  the  s/-clause  tells  the  thing 
expected  or  waited  for,  and  the  meaning  of  si  is  conditional, 
approaching  somewhat  that  of  dum,  but  conveying  less  assurance 
that  the  thing  in  question  will  ultimately  happen.  The  third 
example  is  obviously  different.  There  the  speaker  is  of  course 
not  waiting  for  the  other  to  know  his  business,  and  we  are 
tempted  to  render  *'I  have  long  been  waiting  (to  see)  whether 
you  know  your  business,''  making  expectare  the  point  of  sup- 
port for  an  indirect  question ;  as  for  instance  in 

Cic.  in  Verr.  II.  1.  59.  154: 
expectenms  quid  dicant  ex  Sicilia  testes? 


76 


University  of  California  Publications,      [Class.  Puil. 


It  is  true  that  E.  Becker^*  is  probably  rijrht  in  denyintj  that  si 
ever  has  full  interrojrative  force  in  the  writin^rs  of  Plautus.  But 
the  passage  in  question  is  from  a  prologue  probably  of  later  date, 
and  therefore  in  our  analysis  we  are  not  restricted  by  the  Plau- 
tine  rule.  In  the  two  remaining  cases  (Tri.  98  and  148)  it  is 
difficult  to  say  whether  to  the  original  speaker  si  was  purely  con- 
ditional, or  whether  there  was  some  admixture  of  interrogative 
shading.    This  latter  we  perhaps  are  too  prone  to  feel. 

B.— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Action  and  Effort. 

Capt.  100-01 : 
Homines  captivos  romnirrrafnr,  si   pn^at 
alicpiem  invenire  suom  <pii  niutet  filiuni. 

Cist.  18:^84: 
Inhft  ilium  eundem  persrqui,  si(|ua  (pieat 
reperire  ((uae  sustulerit. 

Cist.  184  ff. : 

ei  i-ei  nunc  suam 
(>p<  ratn  us(|ue  assiduo  servos  daf,  si  possiet 
meretricem  illam  invenire. 

Tri.  531-:]2: 
Em  istuc  oportet  opseri  mores  malos 
si  in  opserendo  possint  inter  fieri. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  this  group  the  verb  of  the  .^/-clause  is 
always  quirr  or  posse.  The  thought  of  these  clauses  is  akin  to 
the  purpose  idea,  but  with  a  large  admixture  of  doubt  as  to  the 
attainment  of  the  goal.  A  purpose  clause  with  a  parenthetical 
**if  possible"  or  the  like  would  in  most  cases  provide  a  fair 
rendering  for  the  thought;  e.g.  (Capt.  100-01),  **He  is  buying 
up  prisoners,  that  if  possible  he  may  light  on  one  who  can  be 
exchanged  for  his  son.''  In  Cist.  184  ff.  the  .^/-clause  appears  to 
be  an  expansion  of  ei  rci. 

Though  the  interpretation  of  such  sentences  is  not  difficult, 
it  is  hard  to  determine  in  a  given  case  the  precise  shading  of  si. 
We  can  readily  feel  something  of  conditional  force,  as  thouirh 
the  word  were  chosen  to  convey  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the 
attainment  of  the  purpose.    At  the  same  time  the  English  mind 

"  Stutleniund's  Studia,  Vol.  1,  p.  195. 


Vol.  1] 


Xutting.— Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


77 


is  not  slow  here  too  to  find  the  suggestion  of  interrogative  mean- 
ing. For,  in  collocpual  speech,  with  just  such  a  virtual  purpose 
idea  to  express  we  freely  use  the  interrogative;  e.g.,  *'I  am  going 
to  the  city  (to  see)  if  I  can  secure  some  tickets,"  i.e.,  *Ho  secure 
some  tickets  if  I  can."  The  interrogative  shading  is  most  obtru- 
sive when  the  action  of  the  main  clause  is  a  suggested  experiment 
as  in  Tri.  531-32 ;  there  we  may  assume  that  other  means  of  sup- 
pressing vicious  practices  have  been  tried,  and  the  speaker  now 
jocosely  suggests  that  it  would  be  well  to  make  the  experiment  of 
planting  them  in  that  fatal  field  (to  see?)  if  they  too,  as  well  as 
other  things,  will  be  killed  off. 

(b).  Sentences  of  other  forms. 
The  remaining  cases  of  object  ^/-clauses  containing  the  sub- 
junctive and  dependent  on  indicative  forms  are  so  few  and  scat- 
tering that  they  can  be  best  presented  under  this  general  head. 

A.— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Expectation  and  Waiting. 

Asin.  528-29 : 
An  te  id  exspectare  oportet,  siquis  promittat  tibi 
te  f acturum  divitem,  si  moriatur  mater  sua  ? 

Poen.  1391-92: 
lam  pridem  equidem  istas  scivi  esse  liberas 
et  crspcctabam  siqui  eas  assereret  manu. 

Ps.  1148: 
lamdudum,  si  des,  porrexi  manum. 

Vid.  68 : 
Ilic  astabo  atque  observabo,  siquem  amicum  conspicer.^^ 

These  sentences    are    manifestly    like  those  cited  of  the  form 
si  sit — est. 

B.— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Action  and  Effort. 

Capt.  27-28 : 
Coepit  captivos  commcrcari  hie  Aleos, 
siquem  reperire  posset,  qui  mutet  suom  (sc.  filium). 


32 


Another  example  is  probably  to  be  found  in  True.  692-93,  but  it  con- 
tains the  ambiguous  form  opperiar. 


78 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phil. 


Merc.  622  ff. : 
Qiiin  percontatu's  hoiiiinis  (|uae  facies  foret 
qui  illani  eniisset:  eo  si  pacto  posset  indajrarier 
ninlier? 

Mil.  1207-08 : 

Nam  si  possem  iillo  niodo 
inipetrare,  lit  abiret  nee  te  abdiiceret,  (tprrnm  dedi. 

Tri.  119-20: 
ei  rei  operam  dare  te  fnrrnt  aliqiianto  aequius 
sifjiii  probioreni  facere  posses. 

Vid.  56-57 : 
Ibo  et  quaeram,  si(|uein  possiin  sociorum  naneiseier 
sen  qneni  norini  (pii  advoeatus  adsiet. 

Cf .  Most.  837-38 : 
At  tn  isto  ad  vos  optuere,  quoniani  eorniceni  ne(inis 
eonspicari,  si  voltnrios  forte  possis  eontni. 

Aniph.  880-81 : 
Mercnrinni  iussi  nie  continuo  vonseqiii, 
siqnid  velleni  iniperare. 

Mil.  1158: 
PA.  Date  niodo  operam.     AC.  Id  nos  ad  te,  siquid  velles, 
venimus. 

In  this  «;roup  there  is  the  same  virtual  purpose  idea  underlying? 
the  **-elause  that  was  found  in  sentences  of  the  form  si  sit — est; 
and,  as  there,  the  verb  of  the  .v/-elause  is  rejnilarly  posse  (quire), 
the  exceptions  bein^'  the  last  two  cases  cited,  which  contain  forms 
of  velh,^^  Here  too  it  is  impossible  to  decide  to  what  extent  si 
is  interrojrative.  In  Mil.  1207-08  however  the  unusual  order  (si- 
clause  precedes)  makes  it  difficult  to  feel  any  interro«>:ative  force 
in  si.^*    In  Tri.  119-20  ei  rei  ajjain  anticipates  the  sZ-clause. 

Before  attemptinjr  to  solve  the  problem  of  subjunctive  **  pro- 
tasis" with  indicative  '^apodosis"  for  sentences  containintr  sub- 
junctive object  clauses,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  also  those 

^  There  would  be  further  exceptions  if  we  shouKl  inehnle  Aul.  620-21 
(persfrutabor,  ai  inveniam)  and  Pers.  44  (quaeram,  siquis  credat);  these 
are  excluded  because  of  the  presence  of  forms  in  -am,  Cf.  also  Merc.  941, 
St.  151-52,  the  corrupt  Tas.  806  and  doubtful  Amph.  621. 

'"Cf.  Blase  de  mod.  temp,  permut.  p.  22  (78).  Lindskog  (1.  c.  p.  73). 
without  advancing  any  satisfactory  evidence,  is  very  decided  in  his  disap- 
proval of  Blase 's  position. 


\ 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting.— Studies  in  the  Si-clause, 


79 


cases  in  which  an  indicative  object  clause  is  used.  The  subjunc- 
tive  examples  were  subdivided  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
verb  of  the  main  clause;  (A)  depending  on  verbs  of  expectation 
and  waiting,  (B)  depending  on  verbs  of  action  and  effort.  A 
similar  plan  will  be  followed  here;  but  A  is  lacking,  and  it  is 
necessary  to  add  fCj— depending  on  verbs  of  seeing  and  know- 
ing.   We  therefore  begin  with 

B.— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Action  and  Effort. 

Just  as  in  the  case  of  the  subjunctive  the  verb  of  the  s/-clause 
is  here  also  regularly  posse. 

Bacch.  1151 : 
Ego  ad  hunc  iratum  adgrcdiar,  si  possunuis  nos  hosce  intro 

inlicere  hue. 

Cist.  651-52: 
Ibo,  perstquar  iam  ilium  intro,  ut  haec  ex  me  sciat 
eadem,  si  possum  trancpiillum  facere  ex  irato  mihi. 

Cure.  701 : 
Aitimum  advortitc  hoc,  si  possum  hoc  inter  vos  componere. 

Men.  417-18 : 
adscntabor,  quicquid  dicet,  mulieri, 
si  possum  hospitium  nancisci. 

Men.  1048-49: 
Nunc  ibo  intro  ad  banc  meretricem,  (luamcpiam  suscenset  mihi, 
sei  possum  exorare  ut  pallam  reddat. 

Rud.  890-91 : 
Verum  tamen  ibo,  ei  advoeatus  ut  siem, 
si(|ua  mea  opera  citius — addici  potest. 

Tri.  921: 
Quod  ad  exemplumst  ?  coniectura  si  reperire  possumus. 

Tri.  958-59 : 
Enim  vero  ego  nunc  sycophantae  huic  sycophantari  volo, 
si    hunc    possum    illo    mille    nummum    Philippum    circum- 
ducere.^'^ 
In  this  group  belong  also  a  few  conventionalized  si  vis  clauses 
which  find  a  parallel  in  two  subjunctive  examples  already  cited 


38 


Kud.  329  is  doubtful  in  text  and  meaning.    Cf.  also  Poen.  1063-64  and 
St.  740-41,  which  should  perhaps  come  under  this  heading. 


oCl 


University  of  California  Publications,      [Class.  Phil. 


II 


(si  vellem,  Arnph.  880-81,  and  si  vclUs,  ^Fil.  1158).  All  the  eases 
here  j^iveii  perhaps  do  not  contain  object  clauses,  but  the  list  is 
made  complete  so  there  may  be  no  chance  of  excludinir  what 
should  be  included. 

♦ 

Aul.  209:  litdeo  ad  te,  Me«radore,  sicjuid  nie  vis. 

Capt.  618:  Do  tibi  operam,  Aristophoiites,  sicjuid  est  quod 

me  velis. 
Men.  i)HV):  Em  hie  abiit,  si  vis  per*se<|ui  vesti*riis. 
Pers.  611 :  Addiico  banc,  si((uid  vis  ex  hac  percontarier. 
Poen.  207-08:  Em  amores  tuos,  si  vis  spectare. 
Foen.   1047-48:   Si   itast,  tesseram  conferre  si  vis  hospi- 

talem,  eccam  attuli. 
Tri.  51647:  ST.  Philto,  te  volo.    PIT.  Sicpiid  vis,  Stasime. 

As  the  sentences  of  this  ji:roui)  are  compared  with  the  corre- 
spondin«r  examples  with  subjunctive  .^/-clause,  it  nnist  be  con- 
fessed that  one  looks  in  vain  for  a  difference  of  meaniiiir.  It 
may  be  noted  however  that  if  a  past  tense  is  to  be  used  in  the  si- 
clause  the  subjunctive  is  the  mood  chosen;''*'  for  all  the  indica- 
tive eases  just  cited  employ  the  present  tense. 

C— Dependent  on  Verbs  of  Seeing  and  Knowing. 

Bacch.  529: 
ibo  ut  risam  hue  ad  eum,  si  fortest  domi. 

Cas.  591 : 
Viso  hue,  amator  si  a  foro  rediit  donnnu. 

Men.  142: 
lam  si'iani,  siquid  titubatum.st,  ubi  reliquias  videro. 

Mer.  155-56: 
Quin  iam  priusquam  sum  eloqutus  scis,  si  mentiri  volo. 

Pei-s.  825 : 
Vide  vero,  si  tibi  satis  placet. 


=*Liiulskog  (1.  e.  p.  69)  nuikes  this  distinetion.  Further  he  a«Uls  (espe- 
cially with  reference  to  poH.se  and  quire)  that  when  there  is  a  reference  to 
the  future,  a  verb  in  the  first  person  takes  the  indicative  and  in  other  per- 
sons the  subjunctive.  8o  IJndsay,  ('apt.  28  note.  But  Lindskog  himself 
notices  one  exception  to  the  latter  part  of  the  rule  (namely  Rud.  890-91), 
explaining  it  away  by  saying  that  mea  opera  addici  potest  is  equal  to  poasum 
facere,  ut  addicatur.  This  is  not  altogether  satisfying,  especially  as  there 
is  an  exception  to  the  other  part  of  the  rule  which  he  does  not  notice,  namely 
Vid.  56-57,  where  the  first  person  subjunctive  passim  is  used. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting.— Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


81 


Tri.  748: 
Vid(  si  hoc  utibile  ma^ns  atque  in  rem  deputas. 

Tri.  763 : 

Sed  vide  consilium  si  placet.*^ 
In  this  group  the  nature  of  the  verb  of  the  main  clause  suggests 
most  strongly  interrogative  force  for  si.  Becker  however  (I.e.  p. 
195)  holds  that  even  here  the  word  is  not  fully  interrogative. 
For,Jie  says,  an  undoubtedly  interrogative  word  in  some  of  the 
above  cases  woidd  demand  the  subjunctive,  according  to  Plau- 
tus'  usage;  here  only  the  indicative  is  found. 

Treating  only  those  cases  which  contain  undoubted  indica- 
tive and  subjunctive  forms,  Plautus'  usage  in  object  clauses 
may  be  thus  presented  in  tabular  form. 

1.  After  verbs  of  expectation  and  waiting  the  subjunctive 
is  used. 

2.  After  verbs  of  action  and  effort  the  mood  varies. 

(a)  In  the  present  tenses  both  moods  of  posse  are  used; 
quire  stands  in  the  subjunctive,  velle  in  the  indicative. 

(b)  In  past  tenses  the  subjunctive  of  posse  and  velle  is 
employed. 

3.  After  verbs  of  seeing  and  knowing  the  indicative  is  used. 
With  the  help  of  this  outline  it  is  possible  by  a  process  of  exclu- 
sion to  arrive  at  the  probable  cause  of  the  use  of  the  subjunctive 
in  object  clauses.    For  it  may  be  remembered  that  in  such  clauses 
it  was  generally  found  to  be  true  that  the  force  of  si  was  waver- 
ing between  conditional  and  interrogative.    The  table  just  given 
shows  that  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  must  be  due  to  the  condi- 
tional force  of  the  word— i.e.,  that  this  mood    was    chosen  in 
accordance  with  the  rule  that  called  for  it  in  regular  conditional 
sentences.    For  in  group  3  (after  verbs  of  seeing  and  knowing), 
where  the  interrogative  shading  is  most  pronounced,  the  mood 
of  the  .9i-clause  is  always  indicative.     The  weaker  interrogative 
coloring  of  si  in  groups  1  and  2  cannot  therefore  have  been  the 
factor  that  caused  the  freciuent  use  of  the  subjunctive  there. 


Cist.  682  is  doubtful  in  meaning. 


82 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


83 


1*1 


IV.-THE  INDEFINITE  SECOND  SINGULAR. 

Baech.  440-41 : 
At  nunc  priuscniani  soptnonnis  est,  si  atfiufjas  eiim  inanii. 
extemplo  puer  paedagogo  tabula  disruinpit  caput. 

Capt.  202: 
In  re  mala  animo  si  bono  ufarf\  adiuvat. 

Capt.  221 : 
Nam  doli  non  doli  sunt,  nisi  astu  colas. 

Cas.  721 : 
Quia    (piod    teti^rere,   ilico    rapiunt:  si   eas  ereptum,    ilico 

scindunt. 

Ep.  674: 
Qua(|ue  tan*rit,  omne  amburit.    Si  astes,  aestu  calefacit. 

Men.  108: 
Standumst  in  lecto,  sicpiid  de  summo  petas. 

Mil.  673 : 
Nam  in  mala  uxore  atque  inimico  siquid  sumas,  sumptus  est. 

Fers.  449-50: 
Siquam  rem  ace u res  sobrie  aut  frufjaliter 
solet  ilia  reete  sum  manus  suecedere. 

Poen.  635-36: 
Malo  siquid  bene  facias^  id  beneficium  interit.  • 
Bono  si(|uid  male  facias,  aetatem  expetit. 

Poen.  812-13: 
Siquid  bene  facias,  levior  plumast  ^rratia. 
Siquid  peecatumst,  plumbeas  iras  «;erunt. 

Tri.  349: 
De  majjnis  divitiis  siquid  demas,  plus  fit  an  minus? 

Tri.  414-15 : 
Non  tibi  illud  apparere,  si  sumas,  potest, 
nisi  tu  immortale  rere  esse  argentum  tibi. 

Tri.  1053 : 
Si  ma«re  exigere  occipias,  duarum  rerum  exoritur  optic. 

True.  461-62 : 
Nullani  rem  oportet  dolose  adsjrediri 
nisi  astute  adeurate(iue  cxsequare. 

To  these  sentences  of  the  form  si  sit — est  apparently  should  be 
added  one  of  the  form  si  sit — erit: 


Amph.  703  ff . : 

Bacehae  bacehanti  si  velis  advorsarier, 

ex  insana  insaniorem  facies,  feriet  saepius. 

Si  ohscqnarc,  una  resolvas  plaga. 
Though  forms  in  -eris  are  strictly  speaking:  of  uncertain  mood, 
the  two   followinir  eases  may  be  at   least   enumerated  in   this 
connection : 

Poen.  212-13: 
Xain  nullac  maiiis  res  duae  plus  negoti 
hal)ent,  forte  si  occcpcris  exoruare. 

Tri.  1051 : 
Si(iuoi  mutuom  (juid  dedcris,  fit  pro  proprio  perditum.^® 

A  full  and  final  explanation  of  the  form  of  these  sentences  would 
naturally  start  with  the  subjunctive  of  the  si-clause.  But  unfor- 
tunately the  nature  of  this  subjunctive  is  still  a  matter  of  uncer- 
tainty, and  the  material  at  hand  is  far  too  scanty  to  form  the 
basis  of  any  ade(|uate  ctmclusion  on  that  point.  To  reach  such  a 
conclusion  it  may  be  necessary  to  compass  the  wdde  field  in  which 
the  phenomenon  of  the  concomitant  relation  between  indefinite 
second  siniiular  and  subjunctive  mood  manifests  itself.  How- 
ever, that  there  is  a  cause  and  effect  relation  involved  cannot  I 
think  be  for  a  moment  doubted,  the  upholders  of  the  other  view 
notwithstandin*r.  For  so  sweepin.s?  is  the  tendency  of  a  verb 
whose  subject  is  the  indefinite  second  sinjrular  to  go  into  the  sub- 
junctive that  Plautus  offers  but  a  single  example  of  the  form 
si  (st—est  to  compare  with  the  fourteen  above  of  the  form  si  sit 

— est : 

Asin.  241-42 : 
Portitorum  simillumae  sunt  ianuae  lenoniae: 
si  ad  fers,  tum  patent:  si  non  est  quod  des,  aedes  non  patent. 

Again  a  comparison  of  Poen.  812-13  and  635-36  (given  above  in 
full)  is  suggestive;  in  the  second  of  these  passages  an  alternative 
is  afforded  by  siquid  bene  facias  and  siquid  male  facias,  while  in 
the  other  exactly  the  same  thought  finds  expression  in  the  clauses 
siepiid  bene  facias  and  siquid  peccatumst.  If  the  indefinite  sec- 
ond singular  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  use  of  the  subjunctive 

•*Tri.  347-48  has  a  hortatory  subjunctive  in  apodosis;  cf.  Aul.  380-81. 


84 


University  of  California  Publications,      [('lass.  Phil 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


85 


i| 


' 


it  is  hard  to  account  for  the  choice  of  iii(K)ds  here.    Thoutrh  not 
in  .sM'Uuist^s,  the  variation  in  mood  is  (juite  as  striking:  in  the  two 
fonovvin«r  cases: 
Mil.  947: 
V(»Iup  est,  (|nod  at/as  si  id  procedit  lepide  atrpie  ex  sententia. 

Pm'ii.  111)2: 
I 't  vohip  est  honiini,  niea  soror,  si  cpiod  ayit  cluet  victoria.  '• 

Acceptinjr  as  a  fact  n()t  yet  satisfactorily  cxphiincd  the  sub- 
junctive of  the  .s/-clause  when  the  subject  is  the  indefinite  second 
sin«i:ular,  the  problem  of  subjunctive  *' protasis"  with  indicative 
**apodosis"  for  the  sentences  under  discussion  is  to  determine 
why  the  subjunctive  .s/-clause  tlocs  not  level  its  conclusion.  One 
looks  in  vain  for  a  clear  case  of  such  level linjr  in  IMautus.  There 
are  it  is  true  sentences  like  the  following:: 
Cist.  :iS : 

Eas  si  adeas,  abitum  <|uam  aditum  malis.*^ 

But  tlie  subject  of  the  verb  of  the  conclusion  seems  always  to  be 
as  here  the  indefinite  second  sin«;ular,  and  the  cases  therefore 
give  no  pr(M)f  of  the  workinjrs  of  a  levelliny:  force:  for  such  a 
conclusion  may  take  the  subjunctive  on  its  own  merits,  as  is 
shown  by  exam[)les  in  which  an  indicative  .s/-clause  precedes: 
Bacch.  913  ff. : 

Lippi  illic  oculi  st^rvos  est  simil limns: 

si  non  est,  not  is  esse  ne<|ue  (hsidt  res; 

si  est,  abstinere  (pi in  attinjjas  non  queas, 
Capt.  llBtf.: 

Liber  captivos  avis  ferae  consimilis  est : 

semel  fujriendi  si  datast  occasio, 

satis  est — numquani  postilla  possis  prendere. 

The  reason  why  the  subjiuictive  si-clausc  in  the  sentences 
under  discussion  does  not  level  its  conclusion  is  to  be  found  in 
the  nature  of  the  underlyintr  thou«rht.  The  .v/-clause  refers  to  an 
action  which  the  speaker  assumes  does  happen,  at  least  occasion- 
ally, and  si  is  therefore  practically  a  synonym  of  ubi  or  cmn*^ 


'"The  8hift  in  mood  in  the  long  passage  Baeeh.  426  ff.  and  in  Tri. 
414-15  may  have  been  caused  by  passing  from  the  tiefinite  to  the  indefinite 
second  singular  an<l  vice  versa. 

*•  Other  eases  are:  Amph.  705  and  Tri.  1053-54.  Asin.  120-i'l  is  similar 
but  has  hortatory  force. 

"  See  again  Anier.  Jour.  Phil.,  Vol.  XXIV,  p.  300  flf. 


The  conclusion  has  to  do  with  a  second  act  or  state  w^hich  is 
brouirht  about  by  that  referred  to  in  the  sZ-clause.  This  second 
act  or  state  is  accordingly  also  one  that  does  actually  occur  at 
times,  and  the  indicative  of  the  conclusion  is  simply  a  recognition 
of  that  fact.  The  //-clause  serves  to  define  the  circumstances  of 
the  occurence,  just  as  an  ubi-  or  cj/wi-clause  might  do,  and  the 
mood  of  its  verb  seems  to  exercise  about  as  little  influence  on 
that  of  the  conclusion  as  would  that  of  a  subjunctive  ubi-  or  cum- 

clause. 

In  conclusion  may  be  mentioned  two  sentences  of  the  form 
si  sit— est  in  which  the  subject  of  the  verb  of  the  .^/-clause  is  a 
class  name: 

Bacch.  447-48 : 

Hocine  hie  pacto  potest 
inhibere  imperium  magister,  si  ipsus  primus  vapulct* 

True.  234 : 
Nugae  sunt,  nisi  modo  cpiom  dederit,  dare  iam  lubeat  denuo. 

If  the  context  of  these  passages  be  examined  it  will  be  found 
that  in  the  fii^st  example  magister  is  a  class  name  ''the  master,'' 
and  in  the  second  the  subject  of  discourse  is  amator  "the  lover.'* 
These  sentences,  especially  the  latter,  suggest  the  query  whether 
the  indefiniteness  that  lurks  in  a  class  name  is  not  akin  to  the 
indefiniteness  of  the  general  second  person.  If  so,  the  modal 
peculiarity  of  occasional*-  cases  like  these  might  be  explained 
on  that  analogy. 

V.-LOOSELY  ATTACHED  CLAUSES. 

(a).  The  si  scias  type. 
Merc.  298-99: 

Immo  si  sciaSj 

oculeis  cpuKjue  etiam  plus  iam  video  quam  prius. 

IVlerc.  445 : 

]\lulto  hercle  ille  magis  senex,  si  tu  scias. 

I  venture  to  bring  these  two  sentences  under  a  special  heading 

because  the  si-clause  is  an  idiomatic  phrase  which  is  capable  of 

functioning  alone ;  e.g.y 

*  The  indicative  is  more  common.     See  Aul.  247,  Cure.  142,  Men.  576 
and  Merc.  744. 


I 


I  ; 


gg  University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 

Cas.  668 : 
Imiiio  si  seias  dicta  <|uao  dixit  bodie. 

Cure.  321 : 
Iiiiino  si  srias  reli([uiae  quae  sint. 

l*s.  749: 
PS.  Probiis  honiost,  vit  praedieare  te  audio.     CU.  Iiiiino  si 
scias. 

Vf.  Ba<'ch.  698: 
Iinino  si  audias  quae  dicta  dixit  inc  ndvoiNiiin  tibi.^' 

(b).  The  si  modo  type. 
Ps.  997 : 

Id  airo,  si  taceas  tnodo. 

Tri.  1187: 

Dicis,  si  facias  modo.** 

These  sentences  likewise  bave  been  set  apart  because  the  si  modo 
clause  containin*;  the  subjunctive  is  a  halt*  independent  sentence 
element,  almost  an  expression  of  vvisb ;  cf . : 

C'apt.  996: 
Quod  male  feci,  crucior :  modo  si  infectum  lieri  possiet. 

Cas.  742-43 : 
LY.  Quid  nunc?  quam  niox  recreas  me? 
OL.  Cena  modo  si  sit  cocta. 

Ps.  976 : 
Nam  ilia  mea  sunt  cojniomenta  :  nomen  si  memoret  modo.*'' 

VI.-MIRARI  (MIRUM)  IN  APODOSIS. 

Cure.  265: 
Nil  est  mirandntn,  melius  si  nil  sit  tibi. 
Ps.  433  ff. : 

Sed  si  sint  ea  vera,  ut  nunc  mos  est,  maxume, 
quid  mirum  fecit?  (piid  novom,  adulescens  homo 
si  amat,  si  amicam  liberat  ? 


Vol.  1] 


Xuttiny.— Studies  in  the  Si-elanse. 


87 


*('f.  Asin.  744.  The  use  of  these  and  similar  phrases  in  regular  condi- 
tional sentences  (Bacch.  678,  Ep.  451-.52,  Mil.  1429,  Tri.  538)  may  perhaps 
throw  some  light  on  the  two  sentences  above  in  which  they  are  loosely 
attached. 

**  Cf .  Rud.  680,  and  possibly  -552. 

«C'f.  Cist.  734. 


The  numb(>r  of  cases  in  this  cate<ror\'  is  too  small  to  justify  here 
a  c()nq)lete  exposition  of  Plautus'  usa-e.  lie  re-ularly  employs 
the  indicative  in  the  ^/-clause,  and  these  are  but  two  scattering 
eases  that  have  strayed  across  the  line.*"  I  am  therefore  content 
to  have  merely  (pioted  them  here:  they  would  be  naturally  treated 
in  a  -eiieral  discussion  of  the  idiom  mirari  si  rather  than  in  one 
of  *' subjunctive  protasis  with  indicative  apodosis.'' 

With  rejrard  to  this  i)aper  in  ^ameral  I  perhaps  need  hardly 
say  that  I  do  not  share  the  hope  which  seems  to  characterize 
most  of  the  later  woi'k  on  this  subject  that  some  sweepinjr  expla- 
nation may  be  found  which  is  valid  for  all  cases  of  ^'subjunc 
tive  protasis  with  indicative  apodosis.^'  Only  on  the  assump- 
tion that  Plautus  felt  this  form  as  a  lin»ruistic  unity  could  we 
riirhtly  hope  to  find  any  such  ofcneral  explanation ;  and  that  he 
did  so  feel  it  is,  in  view  of  the  wide  variation  of  the  underlying 
thou^dit,  at  least  very  iuqirobable.  The  division  into  conditional 
sentences,  eoncessive  sentences,  etc.,  seems  to  me  fundamental, 
and  I  have  therefore  in  each  of  these  irroups  based  the  explana- 
tion  of  the  form  on  the  nature  of  the  thoujrht  to  be  conveyed. 

I  would  here  take  up  one  more  topic  which  has  been  post- 
l>(>ned  to  the  end  of  the  discussicm  in  order  that  it  mi^ht  not 
disti-act  attention  from  more  important  matters  if  inserted  in 
its  lojrical  place.    I  refer  to  the  old  problem  of  the  difference  in 
meaninjr  of  suppositions  of  the  forms  si  sit  and  si  erit.     This 
(piestion  is  raised  especially  by  what  w^as  said  of  the  pure  condi- 
tional  sentence,   namely  that   Plautus'   failure  to  differentiate 
sharply  between  the  uses  of  the  two  mood  systems  in  general 
would  be  most  likely  to  betray  itself  in  the  somewhat  inter- 
changeal)le  value  of  these  two  forms  in  particular,  the  time  realm 
of  bo'th  beino-  the  future.     That  he  did  differentiate  to  a  certain 
extent  between  the  use  of  si  sit  and  si  erit  is  unquestionable,  and 
I  would  suggest  that  the  differentiation  was  partly  on  an  objec- 
tive, partly  on  a  subjective  basis,  i.e.,  that  Plautus  tenets  to  use 
the  subjunctive  in  the  two  following  cases : 


40 


Lindskog  (1.  c.  p.  65)  seems  not  to  recognize  Ps.  433  ff.  as  belonging 
to  this  category,  thus  leaving  Cure.  265  as  the  only  example  of  the  use  ot 
the  subjunctive.  To  remove  this  exception  to  the  rule  he  suggests  that  with 
B  we  read  fit  for  sit. 


88 


University  of  California  Publications.     [Class.  Phil. 


i 


(a)  When  there  is  actually  less  likelihood  of  fulfillinent. 

(b)  When  the  speaker  aims  to  give  an  impression  of  less  like- 
lihood of  fulfillment. 

The  first  of  these  cases  is  most  strikingly  illustrated  by  conces- 
sive sentences  of  the  fonn  si  sit — erit.  In  at  least  three  of  the 
four  examples  found  in  Plautus  the  supposition  of  the  .s"/-clause 
is  extremely  improbable. 

Amph.  450:  Quadrigas  si  nunc  inscendas  lovis. 

Asin.  414:  Siijuidem  hercle  nunc  sumnium  lovem  te  dicas 
detinuisse. 

Bacch.  1004:  si  iubeas  maxime. 

Ep.  610:  Si  undecim  deos  praeter  sese  secum  adducat 
luppiter. 

The  peculiarity  of  these  subjunctive  cases  may  be  brou«rht  out 
into  relief  by  contrastinjr  the  correspondinj;  indicative  exam- 
ples. Counting?  as  concessive  one  sentence  in  which  the  function 
of  the  A*t-clause  is  somewhat  complicated,  Plautus  uses  the  form 
si  crit — erit  twice : 

Amph.  1048  ft*.: 

Ubi  (piemque  hominem  aspexero 
si  ancillani,  sen  servom,  sive  uxorem,  sive  adulteruni, 
seu  patrem,  sive  avom  videbo,  obtruncabo  in  aedibus. 

Capt.  683-84: 
Si  eiro  hie  peribo,  ast  ille  ut  dixit  non  redit, 
at  erit  mi  hoc  factum  mortuo  memorabile. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  si  est  is  a  form  that  often  has  future 
force,  there  are  doubtless  some  concessive  sentences  of  the  form 
si  est — erit  which  should  be  added  to  the  two  of  the  form  si  erit 
— erit  before  making  a  comparison  with  the  subjunctive  cases 
first  cited.  I  give  the  complete  list,  leaving  it  to  the  reader  to 
choose  those  sentences  in  which  the  form  si  est  seems  to  him  to 
have  future  meaning.  Whatever  the  sentences  chosen  it  will  still 
be  clear  that  the  sunjunctive  tends  to  be  used  when  the  supposi- 
tion is  extremely  improbable,  which  is  the  point  I  am  trying  to 
illustrate. 

Asin.  405-06 : 

Siquidem  hercle  Aeacidinis  minis  animisque  expletus  ccdit, 

si  med  iratus  tetigerit,  iratus  vapulabit. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting.— Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


89 


Men.  1060-61 : 
Si  voltis  per  oculos  iurare,  nilo  hercle  ea  causa  magis 
facietis  ut  ego  hinc  hodie  abstulerim  pallam. 

Most  229-30 : 
Siquidem  hercle  vendundust  pater,  venibit  multo  potius 
quam  te     .    .    .  sinam  egere. 

Kud.  1014 : 
Sei  tu  proreta  isti  navi's,  ego  gubernator  ero. 

An  illustration  of  Plautus'  tendency  to  use  the  subjunctive 
when  the  speaker  chooses  to  give  an  impression  of  unlikelihood 
of  fulfillment  is  afforded  by  phrases  of  the  form  Quid  si  .  .  . 
sitf  Not  including  the  corrupt  Cas.  806,  there  are  nineteen  ques- 
tions of  this  sort  in  Plautus.  For  the  present  purpose  they  may 
be  subdivided  according  to  person  and  number. 


(a).  First  person  plural. 
Cas.  357-58 : 
Quid  si  propius  attollamus  signa  eamusque  obviam? 

Sequere. 

Cure.  303 : 
Quid  si  adeamusf  hens,  Curculio,  te  volo. 

Cure.  351 : 
Quid  si  abeamus,  decumbamusf  inquit.    Consilium  placet. 

Most.  393 : 
DEL.  Quid  si  igitur  abeamus  hinc  nos?   TR.  Non  hoc  longe, 

Delphi  um. 

Poen.  330 : 
AG.  Quid  si  adeamusf    MI.  Adeas. 

Poen.  707  ff.: 
Quid  si  evocemus  hue  foras  Agorastoclem 
Ut  ipsus  testis  sit  sibi  certissimus? 
Heus  tu,  qui  furem  captas,  egredere  ocius. 

Poen.  1162-63 : 
Quid  si  eamus  illis  obviam  ?    AG.  At  ne  inter  vias 
praeterbitamus  metuo. 

Poen.  1249: 
HAN.  Quid  si  eloquamurf    AG.  Censeo,  hercle,  patrue. 


90 


University  of  California  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


Vol.  1] 


N Hit iny.— Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


91 


These  (juestions  corresixmd  in  *reneral  to  our  '*Sii[)[)ose  wv  do 
thus  and  so'' — a  form  which  leaves  with  the  hearer  the  impres- 
sion that  his  wish  or  jud*rnient  is  beinjr  consulted,  and  that  the 
cominjr  to  pass  of  the  thin«r  su^'^rested  is,  frcmi  the  speaker's 
point  of  view,  anythin*r  but  assured.  Hut  while  in  some  of  the 
above  cases  the  hearer  shows  by  his  expression  of  a|)proval  or 
disapproval  that  he  feels  himself  consulted,  in  others  (Cas.  857- 
58,  Cure.  80:^,  and  Poen.  707  ff.)  the  speaker  really  does  not 
defer  to  his  wish  or  jud»rnient  at  all,  but  without  a  i)ause  pro- 
ceeds to  do  the  thinir  sujr^rested.  That  is,  in  certain  cases  the 
speak("r  even  thou^di  he  fully  exjx'cts  a  thin*;  to  Ix*  done,  still 
uses  in  a  somewhat  perfunctory  way  a  subjunctive  phrase  which 
appeal's  to  consult  the  wish  or  judjrment  of  the  hearer. 

(b).  First  person  singular. 
Capt.  612: 

HE.  Quid  ais?  cpiid  si  adnim  hunc  insainim?    TYX.  Xufras: 
luditicabitur. 

Cist.  321 : 
Quid  si  adcam  atipie  apprUrm?     Mali  damnique   inlecebra, 
salve. 

Cure.  145: 
PH.  Quid  si  adrant  ad  fores  at(|ue  ocrrnffm?    PA.  Si  lubet, 
necpie  veto  necpie  iubeo. 

Ep.  543 : 
Quid  si  adcamf 

Pers.  724: 
TO.  Quid  si  adtnoncam?    VI.  Tempus  est. 

Poen.  728 : 
AG.  Quid  si  recenti  re  aedis  pultcmf    ADV.  Censeo. 

Rud.  535: 
CH.  Quid  si  aliquo  ad  ludos  me  pro  manduco  loccmf 
LA.  Quapropter? 

True.  6 : 
Quid  si  de  vostro  quippiam  oremf — abnuont. 

With  these  may  very  properly  be  enumerated  the  single  ease  in 
which  the  perfect  subjunctive  is  used : 


Capt.  599 : 
IIEG.  fHercle  cpiid  si  hunc  comprehendi  iusserim?     TYN 

Sapias  magis. 
In  several  of  these  cases  the  answer  shows  that  the  hearer  feels 
that  he  is  considted  with  regard  to  the  speaker's  action.  There- 
fore the  question  in  this  number  also  is  properly  a  form  of  defer- 
ential address.  That  however  in  some  of  the  cases  the  speaker 
did  not  really  mean  to  defer  to  the  hearer's  judgment  is  rendered 
probable  by  such  an  example  as  Cist.  321,  where  the  ques- 
tion is  spoken  in  solilocjuy  and  is  practically  an  announcement 
of  the  speaker's  intention— at  any  rate  he  at  once  proceeds  to  do 
the  thing  mentioned.  Whenever  this  is  true  it  provides  another 
illustration  of  the  use  of  the  subjunctive  to  give  the  appearance 
of  deferring  to  the  hearer's  judgment. 

Three  cases  remain  which  must  be  added  to  make  the  state- 
ment complete: 

(c).  Third  person  singular. 

Bacch.  731-32 : 
MX.  Quid  scribam  ?    CH.  Salutem  tuo  patri  verbis  tuis. 
PI.  Quid  si  potius  morbum,  mortem  scribal  f  id  erit  rectius. 

Merc.  419: 
Quid  si  igitur  rcddatur  illi  unde  emptast? 

True.  766 : 
8ed  (|uid  ego  hie  clamo?  quid  si  me  iubeat  intro  mittier? 

In  the  first  of  these  sentences  scribal  is  clearly  analogous  to  the 
first  person  use— the  action  proposed  is  put  forward  as  a  mere 
suggestion,  here  not  by  the  actor  himself  but  by  another  for  him 
as  it  were.  In  the  second  case  the  verb  is  passivfe  and  the  action 
devolves  upon  the  first  person;  in  meaning  the  sentence  would 
properly  be  classed  with  those  in  which  the  subject  of  the  verb 
is  the  first  person.  The  third  example  is  unique,  and  it  seems 
to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  idiom  under  discussion  aside  from 
its  likeness  of  form :  its  force  is  akin  to  that  of  indicative  ques- 
tions of  similar  structure.*^ 

This  completes  the  discussion  of  the  difference  of  meanin 
of  the  forms  si  sit  and  si  erit,  and  the  paper  might  be  closed  at 

♦•  I  omit  from  the  eumeration  Ps.  740  because  it  seems  to  have  no  exact 
parallel  either  among  the  subjunctive  or  the  indicative  cases.  1  have 
accepted  the  punctuation  Quid?  si  opus  sit  ut  dulce  promat  indidem,  ecquid 
habet?  and  have  treated  the  case  as  a  pure  conditional  sentence. 


4 


i 


I 


University  of  Calif orniu  Publications.      [Class.  Phil. 


this  point.    But  havinjr  ^ven  the  material  in  full  for  questions 
(»f  the  fonn  Quid  si  .    .    .  sitf    I  ou»rht  perhaps  to  add  for  the 
sake  of  comparison  those  of  the  form  Quid  si  .    .    .  est  (erit)? 
Because  of  stronjrly  idiomatic  use  such  a  comparis(m  throws  veiy 
little  direct  lijrht  on  the  question  last  under  discussion  (the  dif- 
ference in  jreneral  between  the  meaninjr  of  si  sit  and  si  crit), 
but  it  is  interestin*r  in  and  for  itself,  and  the  matter  seems  to 
be  nowhere  fully  treated.**^  The  characteristic  force  of  the  indica- 
tive is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  following  examples: 
Asin.  536-38 : 
CL.  Non  voto  ted  amare  cpii  dant,  (pioia  amcntur  «rratia. 
PH.  Quid  si  hie  animus  occupatusl,  mater.'  quid  faciam? 

Merc.  890 : 
EV.  Potin  ut  animo  sis  tran(|uiIlo?    CHA.  Quid  si  mi  animus 
fluctuate 
Pers.  612-13: 
DO.  Enim  volo  te  adessc.   TO.  Ihni  possum,  quin  hnic  opci-juii 

dem  hospiti 
(pioi  erus  iussit     Quid  si  hie  non  volt  me  una  adessc? 

Poen.  721-22: 
AG.  Quid  nunc  mihi  auctorcs  cstis?    ADV.  I't  frugi  sis. 
AG.  Quid  si  animus  esse  non  siiiitf 
Rud.  1085-86 : 

TR.  Xil  i)eto  nisi  cistulam 
et  crcpundia.    (iR.  Quid  si  ea  sunt  aureat 

Rud.  1138-39: 
Quid  si  ista  aut  superstitiosji  aut  hariola.^cf  at((ue  omnia 
quidquid  inerit  vera  dicetf 

Tri.  1059-60: 

CH.  Te  volo. 

ST.  Quid  si  ejro  me  te  velle  nolo? 

Questions  like  these  arc  not  polite  and  deferential  phrases.     On 
the  contrary  they  verge  toward  a  protest  ajrainst  the  expressed 

*"  Liiulskog  (1.  C-.  p.  106  if.)  ^ives  iiieoniplete  lists.  Of  the  subjiuu- 
tive  cases  he  omits  Mer.  419,  Poen.  Ili49,  an«l  Tnu*.  766;  of  the  indica- 
tive eases,  Amph.  7(»l,  Baeih.  35,  Pa.  286,  Rud.  1()S6  and  1138  (two  of 
these  enijjioy  the  perfect  tense  which  he  does  not  treat  at  all)  ;  of  cases  of 
ambiguous  form  (-am),  Rud.  1274  and  1312.  Regarding  the  subjunctive 
he  says  (p.  109)  **Rei  natura  fit,  ut  semper  praesens  coniunetivi  usurpe- 
tur;"  but  C'apt.  599  has  iusserim.  O.  Brugmann  (1.  c.  p.  27)  touches  on 
this  subject,  but  with  very  incomplete  material.  Of.  Brix  on  Capt.  613  and 
Sounenschein  on  Bud.  472. 


Vol.  1] 


Nutting. — Studies  in  the  Si-clause. 


93 


desire  or  advice  of  the  person  addressed.  In  translation  we 
instinctively  recotrnize  this  fact  by  bejxinninjr  with  an  adversa- 
tive pai-ticle  ''But  what  if  .  .  .  V  The  tone  of  the  question 
mav  be  even  insolent,  as  in  the  last  case  cited.*" 

Other  examples  of  a  similar  nature  but  with  the  speaker's 
feelin«r  of  protest  or  hesitation  perhaps  not  so  clearly  marked 

are : 

Amph.  391-92 : 

SO.  Tuae  fidei  credo :    .AIE.  Meae. 

SO.  Quid  si  fallrsf 

Asin.  193  IT. : 
Si  mihi  dantur  duo  talenta  ar*renti  niunerata  in  manum, 
banc  tibi  noctem  honoris  causa  *:ratiis  dono  dabo. 
AR.  Quid  si  non  cstf 

Bacch.  1184-85: 
NT.  Quem  <iuidem  e«?o  ut  non  fexcruciem,  alterum  tantuni 

auri  non  meream. 
BA.  Quid  tandem  si  dimidium  auri  reddituv! 

Cas.  269  ft*. : 
CLE.  Quid  si  ejro  impetro  atque  vxoro  a  vilico,  causa  mea 
ut  earn  illi  permittat  ?    LY.  Quid  si  ego  autem  ab  armigero 

impetro 
ut  cam  illi  permittat? 

Merc.  907-08 : 
CHA.  Opta  ergo  ob  istunc  nuntium  quidvis  tibi. 
EV.  Quid  si  optahof 
Most.  580  ff. : 

TR.  Reddet:  nunc  abi. 
DA.  Quid  ego  hue  recursem  aut  operam  sumam  aut  conteram? 
Quid  si  hie  mancbo  potius  ad  meridiem  f^ 
In  these  cases  the  characteristic  force  of  the  indicative  question 
is  least  clear  in  Bacch.  1184-85,  which  shades  off  toward  the 


^••Lindskog's  definition  (p.  107)  seems  to  me  far  too  vague  ' ' indicativus 
usurpatur,  cum  quis  quaerit,  quid  futurum  sit,  si  quod  in  protasi  contineatur 
evenerit.  *  * 

'"Here  belongs  probably  also  the  somewhat  complicated  Amph.  849  ff. 
Some  would  include  Ep.  599;  but  the  ^i-clause  seems  here  to  be  concessive, 
and  if  so  the  sentence  should  be  punctuated  Quid?  si  servo  aliter  visumst, 
non  poteras  novisse,  obsecro?  Aul.  776  has  been  emended  to  provide  still 
another  case. 


94 


University  of  California  Puhlications.      [Class.  Phil. 


meaiiinj,'  of  the  subjunctive  sentences.  Most.  580  ff.  is  compli- 
cated by  the  interjection  of  the  words  Quid  .  .  .  conteram? 
At  a  first  readinjr  the  exact  force  of  Cas.  269  ff.  may  not  be  evi- 
dent. But  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  verbs  of  line  269  are  impe- 
trare  and  exorare  (not  peto  or  the  like)  :  this  assumption  of 
success  in  the  appeal  inclines  one  to  believe  that  the  question 
was  spoken  in  a  tauntinjr  and  exasperating;  tone.  Lysidamus  has 
betrayed  all  too  clearly  his  intention  with  reference  to  the  mar- 
riage of  Casina,  and  his  wife  retorts,  ''But  what  if  I  succeed  in 
inducin«r  the  steward  to  y-ive  her  up?"  So  interpreted  the  indic- 
ative has  the  normal  and  characteristic  meanin»r  above  described. 
There  still  remain  two  cases  of  the  form  Quid  si — estf 

Bacch.  .*]5: 
BA.  Quid  si  hoc  potis  rst  ut  tu  taceas,  e^jo  eloqar?    80.  Lep- 
ide:  licet. 

Men.  844: 
MA.  Quid  est?  Quid  ai-imus?  SE.  Quid  si  e^^o  hue  servos  eitof 

The  meaninir  of  the  second  of  these  examples  seems  precisely 
like  that  of  the  subjunctive  cases.  Bacch.  35,  comin^:  just  after 
a  lacuna,  is  partially  devoid  of  context;  but  the  meaning  here  too 
seems  to  api)roach  closely  that  of  the  subjunctive  question.^^ 

It  will  be  remembered  that  all  the  subjunctive  cases  except- 
ing^ Capt.  599  (insscrim)  use  the  present  tense.  I  have  therefore 
compared  them  with  indicative  cases  of  the  forms  Quid  si 
.  .  .  estf  and  Quid  si  .  .  .  eritf  as  these  have  to  do  with  a 
like  time  realm.  There  are  also  a  few  indicative  cases  which 
employ  other  tenses;  they  are  Amph.  701,  Asin.  720,  Ps.  286,  514, 
and  Kud.  721." 


"LiiKlskoj;  (1.  c.  p.  Ill),  having  omitted  from  his  enumeration  Bacch. 
.'15,  naturally  fimis  the  only  exception  to  the  rule  in  Men.  844.  To  avoid 
the  excei)tion  he  suggests  that  cito  is  adverb  rather  than  verb.  The  line 
between  the  use  of  the  indicative  and  subjunctive  was  doubtless  not  abso- 
lutely hard  and  fast.  It  may  be  rememl)ered  that  of  the  subjunctive  cases 
True.  766  approaches  close  to  indicative  meaning;  this  case  also  was 
omitted  by  L. 

"-The  text  «)f  Asin.  105  is  doubtful.  Aside  from  these  there  are  six 
examples  wlncli  contain  and>iguous  forms  in  -am,  namely  Amph.  313,  Merc 
504,  578,  Most.  1093,  Rud.  1274,  and  1311  ff.;  all  excepting  the  last  have 
subjunctive  force.  Two  cases  have  verbs  terminating  in  -erit  (Cas.  345  and 
Rud.  472  ff.)  and  one  with  the  form  fajris  (Mil.  1417) ;  these  three  have 
indicative  force. 


F'iil 


'Pi^ 


UNIVERSITY   OF  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED) 

ASTRONOMY.-W.  W.  Campbell,  Editor. 

Publications  of  the  Lick  Observatory.— Volumes  I-V  completed.  Volume 
VI  (in  progress): 

No.  I.  A  Short  Method  of  Determining  Orbits  from  Three  Observations, 
by  A.  O.  Leuschner. 

No.  2.  Elements  of  Asteroid  1900  GA,  by  A.  O.  Leuschner  and  Adelaide 
M.  Hobe. 

No.  3.  Preliminary  Elements  of  Comet  1900  III,  by  R.  H.  Curtiss  and 
C.  G.  Dall. 

Contributions  from  the  Lick  Observatory.— Nos.  1-V. 

Lick  Observatory  Bulletins.— Volume  I  (pp.  193)  completed.  Volume  II 
(in  progress). 

BOTANY.-W.  A.  Setchell,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $3.50.    Volume  I  (pp.  418) 

completed.    Volume  II  (in  progress): 

No.  I.    A  Review  of  Californian  Polemoniaceae,  by  Jessie Milliken.    Price,  $0.75 
No.  2.    Contributions  to  Cytological  Technique,  by  W.  J.V.  Osterhout.  Price,       .50 

EDUCATION.— Elmer  E.  Brown,  Editor.    Price  per  volume  $2.50. 

Volume  I  (pp.  424).    Notes  on  the  Development  of  a  Child,  by  Milicent  W. 

Shinn Price,    2.25 

Vol.  II  (in  progress). — No.  1.     Notes  on  Children's  Drawings,  by  Elmer  E. 

Brown  Price,       .50 

Vol.  Ill  (in progress). —No.   1.    Origin  of  American  State  Universities,  by 

Elmer  E.  Brown Price,      .50 

No.  2.    State  Aid  to  Secondary  Schools,  by  David 
Rhys  Jones Price,       .75 

GEOLOGY.— Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Geology.   Andrew  C.  Lawson,  Editor. 

Price  per  volume  $3.50.  Volumes  I  (pp.  428),  II  (pp.  450)  and 
III  (475),  completed.    Volume  IV  (in  progress): 

No.  1.    The  Geology  of  the  Upper  Region  of  the  Main  Walker  River,  Nevada, 
by  T.  D.  Smith  (in  press). 

PATHOLOGY.— Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor,   Editor.      Price  per  volume   $2.00 

Volume  I  (in  progress): 

No.  I .  On  the  Quantitative  Separation  of  the  Globulins  of  Hemolytic  Serum, 
with  Special  Reference  to  the  Carbon  Dioxide  Group,  by 
Clarence  Quinan. 

No.  2.  Hydrolysis  of  Protamine  with  Especial  Reference  to  the  Action  of 
Trypsin,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 

No.  3.    On  the  Synthesis  of  Fat  Through  the  Reversed  Action  of  a  Fat- 
Splitting  Enzyme,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 

No.  4.    On   the   Occurrence   of  Amido-Acids  in  Degenerated  Tissues,  by 
Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 

No.  5.    On  the  Autolysis  of  Protein,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 

No.  6.    On  the  Reversion  of  Tryptic  Digestion,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor 

No.  7.    Studies  on  an  Ash-Free  Diet,  by  Alonzo  Englebert  Taylor. 


In 

one 

cover. 


)     In 

>    one 

•J  cover. 


VNIVERSII'Y  Hr  CALIFORNIA   PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUCO) 


'XBiiiiisoF: 


MJL  mk  ■♦  "•"IT'' 


Volume  I|  completed.    Price,  $2.00 


Ho. 
.Mo. 
Nol 


9* 


No.    7. 


No. 


1.  Tlie  Siiiiimiim  Bonuni,  by  Evander  Bradley  McGilvary. 

2.  The  Essentials  of  Human  Faculty,  by  Sidney  Edward  Mezes. 

3.  Some  Scientific  Apologies  for  Evil,  by  George  Malcolm  Stratton. 
Pragmatism  and  the  a  priori^  by  Charles  Henry  Rieder. 
Latter-Day  Flowing-Philosophy,  by  Charles  Montague  Bakewell. 
Some    Problems  in    Evolution   and    Education,  by  Ernest   Norton 

Henderson. 
Fiilosophy   and   Science   in   tii    Stpdy   of    Education,   by  Jesse 

Dismukes  Burks. 

1.    The  Dialectic  of  Bruno  and  Spinoza,  by  Arthur  Oncken  Lovejoy. 
0.    The  Logic  of  Self-Realization,  by  Henry  Waldgrave  Stuart. 
10.     Utility  and  the  Accepted  Type,  by  Theodore  de  Lopez  de  Laguna. 
U.    A  Theory  of  the  Syllogism,  by  Knight  Dunlap. 
12.    The  ^s^&Skl  Principle  of  Tri|tJi-E¥iilMi|i#n,  by  Harry  Allen  Overstreet. 

■'11  «■  II' i         "  "  !' 


In 

one 

cover. 


PHYSIOLOOT.—Jacques  Loeb,  Editor.     Price  per  volume  $2.00.      Volume  I 

(pp.  217)  completed.     Volume  II  (in  progress): 

No.  1.  The  Control  of  Heliotropic  Reactions  in  Fresh  Water  Crustaceans 
by  Chemicals,  Especially  Cog  (a  preliminary  communication), 
by  Jacques  Loeb. 

Mil.  2.  further  E^cperiments  on  Heterogeneous  Hybridization  in  Echino- 
derms,  by  Jacques  Loeb. 

No.  3.  Tlic  Influence  of  Calcium  and  Barium  on  the  Secretory  Activity 
of  the  Kidney  (second  communication),  by  John  Bruce  Mac- 
Callum. 

No.  4.  lote  on  the  Galvanotropic  Reactions  of  the  Medusa  Polyorchis 
Penicillata  A.  Agassiz,  by  Frank  W.  Bancroft. 

Ho.  5,    Tlie  Action  on  the  Intestine  of  Solutions  Containing  Two  Salts,  1      , 
by  John  Bruce  MacCallttm  '" 

I   one 

No,  f.    The  Action  of  Purgatives  in  a  Crustacean  {Sida  Crysiallina) ,  by      cover 
John  Bruce  MacCallum.  J 

Z00L0(3lf.^W.   1.    Ritter,    Editor.      Price    per    volume    $3.50.      Volume 

(pp.  286)  completed.    Volume  II  (in  progress): 

No.  1.    The  Hydroids  of  the  San  Diego  Region,  by  Harry  Beal  Torrey.   1     In 
Pages  43,  text  figures  23.  I     one 

lit.i    fie  Ctenophores   of  the   San   Diego   Region,  by   Harry  Beal    |  PHce 
Torrey.     Pages  6,  Plate  1 .  J       .60 

UHmmSlfY   CH»OinCLE.-An  official  record  of  University  life,  issued  quarterly, 

edited  by  a  committee  of  the  faculty.     Price,  $1.CX)  per  year.    Current 
volume  No.  VII. 


Address  all  orders,  or  requests  for  information  concerning  the  above  publications 
(except  Agricultural)  to  Tlie  University  Press,  Berkeley,  California. 


